•CALIFO^ 


lEllMVLKV^  .^clUSANGtUj. 


nmrn- 


fTtl 


lOSANGEifx 


^       ^ 


\\^EUNTv'ER.\ 


J>- 


,|  ^Vf^ 

i^3^ 

,     ill 

iw.^m^ 


<rt: 


:lbl\Mli  10 


n 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF   THE    ~ 

CATACOMBS 


AND    OF   OTHER 

MONUMENTS    OF    CHRISTIAN    ART, 

From  the  Second  to  the  Eighteenth  Century, 

CONCERNING   QUESTIONS   OF  DOCTRINE  NOW 
DISPUTED  IN  THE  CHURCH. 


BY   the 


REV.  WHARTON   B.   MARRIOTT,  B.D.  F.S.A. 

SOMETIME  FELLOW  OF  EXETER  COLLEGE,  OXFORD,  AND  ASSISTANT 
MASTER  AT  ETON  ;  SELECT  PREACHER,  ETC. 


1^ 


LONDON: 
HATCHARDS,    187    PICCADILLY. 

MDCCCLXX. 
A//  Rights  are  reserved. 


LONDON: 

Strangeways  and  Walden,  Printers, 
Castle  St.  Leicester  Sq. 


CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 


Monuments  of  Christian  Art,  from  the  Second  to  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  illustrating  the  gradual  De- 
velopment OF  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  ViRGIN  MaRY    .  .       Pp.    I -63 


PART  II. 

Monuments  of  Christian  Art  having  reference  to  the 

Supremacy  claimed  for  the  See  of  Rome     .         .         .         65-1 1 1 


PART  III. 

The  Autun  Inscription,  having  reference  tg  the  Sacra- 
ments OF  Baptism  and  of  Holy  Communion,  and  to 
the  State  of  the  Faithful  after  Death  .         .       113-1! 


Appendix 189-223 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


p.  13.  [Woodcut.]  Figure  of  an  Orante  (male).  From  the  Cemetery  of 
SS.  Marcellinus  and  Petrus.     (Aringhi  R.  S.  tom.  ii.  p.  in.) 

P.  14.  [Woodcut.]  Ornamented  Glass,  with  Male  and  Female  Oranti. 

P.  22.  [Woodcut]  The  Adoration  of  our  Lord  by  the  Magi.  From  the 
Cemetery  of  SS.  Marcellinus  and  Petrus.  (Aringhi  R.  S.  t.  ii. 
p.  117. 

P.  24.  [Woodcut.]  The  Holy  Family.  [For  another  interpretation  of  the 
Picture  see  p.  25.]     From  the  Cemetery  of  S.  Priscilla. 

P.  37.  The  Adoration  of  the  Magi.  From  a  Mosaic  in  the  Church  of 
S.  Maria  Maggiore  at  Rome,  in  its  original  state,  circ.  438  a.d. 
From  a  Drawing  in  a  Collection  formed  for  Pope  Clement  XI, 
hitherto  unpublished. 

Plate  I.  The  Ascension.  From  a  Syriac  MS.  of  the  Gospels  written 
A.D.  586.     (See  '  Vestiarium  Christianum,'  p.  238.) 

Plate  II.  The  Assumption  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  From  the  Church 
of  St.  Clement  at  Rome,  circ.  850  a.d. 

Plate  III.  The  Virgin  Mary  as  Queen  of  Heaven :  Popes  Ca- 
lixtus  II.  and  Anastasius  IV.  kneeling  at  her  feet.  (12th 
century.) 
P.  63.  [Woodcut.]  The  ancient  Mosaic  of  Xystus  III.  in  the  Church  of 
S.  Maria  Maggiore  at  Rome,  as  altered  in  the  i8th  century  to 
suit  modern  Roman  ideas. 

Plate  IV.  The  Diptych  of  St.  Paul.  [The  more  important  of  the 
two  leaves  of  this  Diptych  is  more  perfectly  reproduced,  as  a 
photograph,  in   the  frontispiece  to  '  Vestiarium  Christianum.' 


vi  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

The  Book  of  the  Gospels  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  (supposed 
to  be  such)  is  there  clearly  seen.  In  the  photolithograph  of 
this  volume  it  has  been  accidentally  obscured.] 

Plate  V.  Fresco  representing  St.  Cornelius  Papa  and  St.  Cyprian. 

Plate  VI.  The  Frescoes  of  the  Triclinium  Lateranum. 
1'.  96.  [Woodcut.]  St.  Peter  bestowing  the  Pallium  on  Leo  III.  and  the 
Vexillum  of  the  Empire  upon  Charlemagne.     From  the  Col- 
lection of  Pope  Clement  XI. 

Plate  VII.  The  Donation  of  Constantine,  and  his  (supposed)  Bap- 
tism by  Sylvester,  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Plates  VII.  and  VIII.  The  Coronation  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund. 
The  Council  of  Florence.  From  the  Alti  Relievi  on  the  Gates 
of  St.  Peter's  at  Rome,  executed  by  command  of  Pope 
Eugenius  IV. 

Plate  IX.  The  Autun  Inscription. 

P.  123.  [Woodcut.]  The  Episcopal  Ring  of  St.  Arnulph,  Bishop  of  Metz. 
(6th  century.)  The  basket  (containing  a  fish)  there  repre- 
sented closely  resembles  some  still  used  by  labourers  in  central 
France. 

P.  143.  [Woodcut.]  Capital  of  a  Column  in  the  Baptistery  of  the  Church 
of  St.  Germain  des  Pres  at  Paris.  The  original  church  dated 
from  the  6th  century.  The  present  church,  the  oldest  in  Paris, 
is  mainly  of  the  12th  century;  but  many  of  the  capitals  and 
shafts  belonging  to  the  earlier  church  have  been  used  in  the 
construction.  ^ 

P.  144.  [Woodcut.]  The  Fish-God.     From  an  ancient  Gem. 

P.  147.  [Woodcut.]  Phcenician  and  Cyzicene  Coins,  presenting  the  type 
from  which  the  Ichthyography  of  Autun,  and  of  St.  Germain 
des  Pres,  appears  to  have  been  derived. 

P.  149.  [Woodcut.]  Small  Figure  (nth  century)  of  (?  a  Priest  or  Bishop) 
one  holding  in  his  hands  a  Chalice,  on  which  rests  a  Fish. 
Found  at  Autun. 


PART    I 


THE 


CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY, 

Jtsi  '$h([  imd   IJnognn'iS; 


AS    EXHIBITED 


IN    MONUMENTS   OF  ART    FROM   THE  SECOND   TO   THE 
EIGHTEENTH    CENTURY. 


THE 

CULTUS   OF   THE  VIRGIN   MARY, 

&c.   &c. 


From  various  causes,  upon  which  we  need  not  now  dwell, 
a  great  impulse  has  been  given  of  late  years  to  the  study 
of  primitive  Christian  Art.  Early  monuments  are  still  in 
existence,  many  but  recently  discovered,  not  a  few  of  them 
either  all  but  unknown  or  known  only  in  disguise,  which 
are  of  the  highest  importance  for  their  bearing  upon  dis- 
puted questions  of  doctrine  or  of  discipline.  And  of  all 
the  fields  for  such  research  open  to  the  student,  none  is 
more  rich  in  hidden  treasure  than  '  Subterranean  Rome ; ' 
no  records  of  Primitive  Christendom  more  suggestive  than 
the  rude  frescoes  depicted  on  the  walls  of  the  Catacombs, 
or  the  simple  inscriptions  there  to  be  read. 

The  history  of  these  '  Catacombs,'  to  use  the  name'"''  by 


*  This  name  properly  applies  only  and  visited  at  a  time  when  all  the 

to  one  particular  cemetery  beneath  others    had    passed    into   oblivion, 

the  church  of  St.  Sebastian,  which  Hence  it  was  that,  when  tlie  older 

from  early  times  was  known  as  'Ad  cemeteries  were   discovered  in  the 

Catacumbas  '   (this  last  probably  a  sixteenth  century,  the  special  desig- 

barbarous    corruption    of  a    Greek  nation    of  that   one    cemetery   be- 

word).    This  particular  cemetery  was  came    a    generic   term    applied   to 

easily  accessible,  and  was  still  known  them   all. 

B 


2  THK  CUI.TUS  OI'-  TlIK  VIRGIN  MARY. 

which  tlicy  are  popularly  known,  abounds  with  an  interest 
all  its  own,  quite  apart  from  any  reference  to  the  contro- 
verted questions  of  these  our  own  days  ;  though  upon 
these  also,  as  we  have  already  intimated,  their  evidence 
is  of  the  highest  value.  We  speak  of  their  history  abso- 
lutely ;  but  we  should  rather  say  their  history  as  far  as  at 
present  it  admits  of  being  written.  For  all  that  as  yet  has 
been  determined  concerning  them,  is  confessedly  imperfect. 
And  though  there  is  much  that  may  now  be  regarded  as 
conclusively  established,  there  is  also  much  that  still  is,  and 
probably  will  yet  remain,  subject  for  conjecture,  rather  than 
for  well-grounded  and  certain  conclusion. 

The  '  Roma  Sotterranea,''"  edited  by  Dr.  Northcote  and 
Mr.  Brownlow,  is  a  compendium  of  what  has  been  written 
on  the  subject  by  Cavaliere  De  Rossi  of  Rome,  more  par- 
ticularly of  a  work,  as  yet  incomplete,  the  title  of  which 
they  have  preserved  in  their  own  volume.  No  one  living 
is  so  fitted  to  be  the  historian  of  the  Catacombs,  as  the 
distinguished  Roman  antiquary  we  have  just  named.  But 
the  language  (Italian)  in  which  his  book  is  written,  and 
in  these  days  of  '  short  and  cheap '  publications,  we  fear 
we  must  add  its  size  and  cost,  nay,  even  the  exactness 
of  its  research  and  great  learning, — all  these  combine  to 
deter  many  English  readers  from  making  acquaintance  with 
its  contents.  And  this  being  so,  we  think  that  the  com- 
pilers of  the  volume  before  us  have  done  good  service,  in 

*   Roma   Sotterranea ;   or,    Some  Northcote,    D.D.,   President   of  St. 

Account  of  the  Roman  Catacombs.  Mary's   College,   Oscott,    and   Rev. 

Compiled  from  the  works  of  Com-  W.  R.  Brownlow,  M.A.    Longmans, 

mendatore  de  Rossi,  with  the  con-  1867. 
sent  of  the  Author.     By  Rev.  J.  S. 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  3 

laying  before  the  English  public  a  summary  of  the  results 
of  De  Rossi's  investigations.  Their  book  would  have 
been  more  valuable  if  they  had  adhered  more  religiously 
than  they  have  done  to  his  guidance.  For  in  spite  of  the 
deep  importance  to  doctrinal  questions,  now  controverted, 
of  the  monuments  with  which  De  Rossi  has  to  deal,  yet 
has  he,  as  far  as  we  have  observed,  the  rare  merit  of  stating  | 
his  facts  exactly  and  impartially,  precisely  as  he  finds  them, 
and  drawing  theological  conclusions  (when  he  does  so  at 
all,  which  is  not  often)  upon  a  statement  of  all  the  facts, 
not  of  a  few  such  out  of  many,  and  these  selected  and 
arranged,  so  as  to  suit  a  predetermined  conclusion. 

We  greatly  regret,  on  many  grounds,  that  we  cannot 
extend  the  same  praise  to  the  compilers  of  the  volume  now 
before  us.  Had  they  confined  themselves  to  questions  of 
archaeological  research,  as  does,  for  the  most  part,  the 
learned  writer  whose  works  they  have  epitomised  ;  or  if, 
embarking  on  questions  of  theology,  they  had  treated  of 
them  with  the  exactness  of  statement  and  representation, 
the  fulness  of  research,  the  strictness  of  logical  inference, 
of  which  his  archaeological  writings  at  least  present  an 
admirable  example, — had  they  made  it  their  one  end  and 
aim  to  present  fully  and  impartially  to  their  readers  all 
the  facts,  within  their  knowledge,  which  were  of  importance 
to  the  questions  they  discussed, — had  this  been  so,  we  at 
least  should  have  welcomed  heartily  the  great  addition 
which  they  might  have  made  to  the  limited  knowledge,  that 
most  of  us  have,  of  the  true  history  of  the  early  Roman 
Church.  But,  as  things  are,  it  is  impossible  to  read  through 
their  volume,  after  studying  those  of  De  Rossi,  without 
beincr  reminded  aeain  and  aoain  of  the  loss  we  have  sus- 


4  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

tained,   in   excllan^i^L:  the  oruidancc  of  a   ocnuinc   Roman 
archajolooist  for  that  of  an  EngHsh  (and  Roman)  divine. 

In  sa\in^-  this,  let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  The  book 
echted  by  Dr.  Northcote  may  be  regarded  as  made  up  of 
two  parts,  and  presenting  two  distinct  characters.  The 
greater  part  of  the  vokmie  is  devoted  to  questions  of 
historical  and  antiquarian  research,  concerning  the  con- 
struction of  the  Catacombs,  their  relative  dates,  their 
pictorial  ornamentation,  and  the  like.  And  In  this  portion 
of  their  work,  in  which  theological  questions  are  only  very 
indirectly  and  remotely  involved,  the  editors  have  trodden 
carefully  in  De  Rossi's  steps  ;  and  have  done  their  own 
part,  in  translation  and  arrangement,  extremely  well.  And 
in  spite  of  the  defects  upon  which  we  are  about  to  dwell, 
we  gladly  commend  this  first  part  of  their  book  as  the  best 
available  summary  of  the  facts  of  chief  importance  in  the 
history  of  the  Roman  Catacombs.  It  is  in  the  later  part 
of  their  book,  where  their  subjects  are  such  as  to  command 
the  interest  of  a  far  wider  circle  of  readers,  that  the  present 
editors  have  conspicuously  failed.  How,  indeed,  being 
what  they  are,  should  they  have  done  otherwise  than  fail,  ? 
For  in  these  later  chapters  (their  Book  IV.),  they  deal  with 
controversial  questions,  which  for  many  centuries  past  have 
been,  as  they  still  are,  at  issue  in  Christendom.  And  these 
are  questions  upon  which  (as  we  shall  shortly  see)  the 
monuments  of  primitive  Christianity  bear  a  testimony 
the  very  reverse  of  that  which  a  Roman  controversialist 
would  desire.  And,  accordingly,  if  men  enter  upon  the 
study  of  the  Catacombs,  as  these  editors  seem  to  have 
done,  with  a  primary  view  to  find  there  testimony  in  behalf 
of  modern   Romanism,  they  set  themselves  to  a   task   in- 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  5 

volving  one  of  two  alternatives.  Either  they  must  shut  up 
their  books,  and  lay  aside  their  pen,  as  soon  as  they  have 
attained  to  anything  like  an  accurate  knowledge  of  their 
subject ;  or  they  must  acquire  (as  indeed  they  seem  to  have 
done)  that  peculiar  faculty,  which  was  pithily  described  by 
one  of  old  time.  They  must  combine  two  seemingly  in- 
consistent powers — that  of  being  blind  to  what  all  other 
men  see,  and  that  of  seeing  what  to  all  but  themselves  is 
invisible.  They  have  to  deal  with  facts  of  Christian  anti- 
quity. But  a  constraining  necessity  is  upon  them  that 
those  facts  shall  be  Romanised.  Unconsciously  therefore 
(of  intentional  misrepresentation,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say, 
we  do  not  for  a  moment  accuse  them),  they  conceal  both 
from  themselves,  and  from  others,  all  that  is  out  of  har- 
mony with  Roman  prejudices,  and  they  import  into  what 
is  before  them  ideas  utterly  unknown '""  to  the  ages  with 
which  they  have  to  deal. 

One  of  two  alternatives,  we  said.  But  we  were  wrong. 
For  yet  a  third  course  is  possible,  and  this  was  actually 
followed — to  his  credit  be  it  said — by  another  author 
(Mr.  Hemans),  whose  workt  is  now  before  us.  We  have 
no  personal  knowledge  of  the  writer,  and  we  repeat  only 
what  we  have  heard  stated  as  matter  of  notoriety,  when 
we  say,  that  at  one  time,  like  Dr.  Northcote,  be  became  a 
'convert'  (so  called)  to  Romanism.      Having  done  so,  he 


*  An   amusing    instance    of  tliis  reigning  at   Rome  in  the  year  252 

(a  matter  trifling  in  itself,  but  like  a.d. 

a   floating   straw   indicative    of   the  t  A   History  of  Ancient  Christi- 

set   of  the    stream)    will   be   found  anity  and  Sacred  Art  in  Italy.     By 

at  p.   138,  where  the  writer  speaks  C.  J.  Hemans.     Williams  and  Nor- 

of  St.  Lucius  (Bishop  of  Rome)  as  gate,  London.      1866. 


6  THE  CUI.TUS  OF  THE  VH-IGIN  MARV. 

devoted  years  of  study  to  the  literature  and  tlie  art  monu- 
ments of  antiquity,  particularly  of  those  at  Rome  itself, 
with  a  \'ie\v  to  strengthening  himself  in  the  new  position 
which  he  had  been  led  to  take  up.  And  he  studied  with 
such  thoroughness  of  research  (of  this  his  book  gives 
evidence,  in  spite  of  many  minor  defects),  and  to  such  un- 
expected results,  that  he  found  himself  compelled,  by  the 
force  of  evidence  which  he  could  not  resist,  to  recall  the 
verdict  which  he  had  already  practically  pronounced,  and 
'  to  retrace  the  steps  which,  when  less  well  informed,  he  had 
taken.  And  this  is  the  more  notable,  because  one  cannot 
read  his  book  without  seeing,  that  all  his  sentiment,  poetical 
and  artistic,  is  still  strongly  enlisted  on  the  side  of  the 
Roman  Church,  in  many  features  of  her  system  by  which 
most  English  Churchmen  would  be  repelled.  He  con- 
demns upon  historical  and  monumental  evidence,  but  he 
condemns  unwillingly.  And  the  very  sympathy  he  shows 
for  the  system  which  he  condemns,  proves  the  more  con- 
clusively the  strength  of  the  conviction  on  which  his  ad- 
verse judgment  is  based. 

Returning  now  to  the  'Roma  Sotterranea'  of  Dr. 
Northcote,  it  may  be  well  to  say,  that  the  more  con- 
troversial part  of  the  work  is  that,  which  will  be  of  the 
highest  interest  to  our  own  readers.  And,  for  ourselves, 
we  wish  it  to  be  understood,  that  we  intend  now  to  devote 
our  Inquiry  to  such  matters  only,  arising  out  of  our  present 
subject,  as  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  questions  of  Christian 
doctrine  or  of  discipline.  Purely  antiquarian  subjects  may 
best  be  discussed  from  a  purely  antiquarian  point  of  view. 
And  upon  these  we  shall  not  now  enter.  But  we  shall 
endeavour  to   carry  with    us,   in   our  theological    inquiries, 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  7 

that  Spirit  of  impartial  investigation,  that  scrupulous  exact- 
ness of  statement  and  representation,  in  which  antiquaries 
too  often  carry  the  palm  over  theologians.  And  while  we 
fully  admit,  that,  in  dealing  controversially  with  the  facts  of 
antiquity,  we  approach  them  with  the  expectation  of  finding 
very  different  conclusions  warranted  from  those  to  which 
Dr.  Northcote  would  lead  his  readers,  we  shall  in  all  cases 
be  careful  to  bring  forward  full  authority  for  every  fact 
alleged.  And  so,  even  if  by  any  we  shall  be  supposed  to 
write  as  advocates,  rather  than  in  a  spirit  of  dispassionate 
judgment,  our  readers  may  at  any  rate  have,  between 
Dr.  Northcote  and  ourselves,  the  evidence  that  on  both 
sides  is  available,  and  upon  that  evidence  base  their  own 
conclusions. 

Yet,  before  embarking  upon  our  own  immediate  subject, 
it  will  be  well  to  give  here  a  brief  description  of  the  special 
sources  of  testimony  to  which  we  are  about  to  appeal,  these 
being  of  a  kind  which,  up  to  this  time,  have  attracted  far 
less  attention  than  they  deserve. 

In  the  principal  cities  of  Italy,  in  Southern  France,  and 
here  and  there  in  parts  of  Africa  and  of  the  East,  there  have 
been  preserved  to  our  own  time  monuments  of  primitive 
Christian  art,  which  reflect  in  a  most  remarkable  manner 
the  prevailing  tone,  and  the  distinguishing  characteristics, 
of  the  successive  centuries  from  which  they  date.  The 
earliest  of  these  (some  few  of  those  in  the  Roman  Cata- 
combs) date,  in  all  probability,  from  a  time  but  little  later 
than  that  of  the  Apostles.  And,  from  that  time  onward, 
we  possess  a  series  of  monuments  of  the  most  varied  kind, 
frescoes,  mosaic  pictures,  sepulchral  inscriptions,  sculptured 
sarcophagi,  carvings  in  ivory,  ornamented  glass,  illuminated 


8  THE  CULTUS  OF  TITF.  VIRGIN  MARY. 

books,  coins,  medals,  works  in  bronze  and  other  metals, 
which  constitute  a  pictorial  history  of  Western  Christendom, 
from  the  earliest  ages  to  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century/" 
Specimens  of  these  will  be  set  before  our  readers,  few  in 
number,  but  sufficient  to  indicate  their  importance  as  bear- 
ing upon  questions  of  the  greatest  interest  to  all  religious 
men  at  the  present  time. 

Of  the  many  and  varied  works  of  art  of  which  we  speak, 

none  are  of  greater  interest  to  ourselves  than  the  series  of 

monuments,  either  above  ground  or  below  it,  which  are  still 

'   to  be  found  at  Rome.     These  are  of  various  kinds.      But 

those   with   which  mainly  we  are  now  concerned,  are  the 

1   rude  frescoes  upon  the  walls   of  tlie   Catacombs,   and  the 

j   mosaic  pictures,  dating  from  the  close  of  the  fourth  century 

onwards,    which    cover    the    walls    of   some   of  the    oldest 

churches  at  Rome  and  Ravenna. 

Tpie  Catacombs. 

And  first  it  may  be  well  to  say  luhat  the  Catacombs  are, 
\  — viz.,  places  of  Christian  sepulture.  That,  in  very  excep- 
tional cases,  particular  chambers  in  the  Catacombs  were 
either  constructed,  or  adapted,  so  as  to  make  them  available 
for  Divine  worship,  we  have  clear  evidence.  But  if  we 
would  interpret  the  earlier  pictures  of  the  Catacombs  aright, 
we  must  constantly  bear  in  mind,  what  apparently  never 

"'  From  this  period  onward,  Chris-  Monuments   of  modern  art  lose  in 

tian  art  in  the  AVest  has  followed  its  historical  value,  as  direct  expressions 

own  rules,  instead  of  being  subordi-  of  contemporary  belief,  in  proportion 

nated  wholly  (as  in  the  East  it  still  to  what  they  have  gained  in  cesthe- 

is)  to  the  direct  reproduction  of  re-  tic  beauty, 
ligious  ideas  after  traditionary  forms. 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  g 

occurs  to  Dr.  Northcote,  that  we  are  contemplating  expres- 
sions of  Christian  faith,  by  primitive  believers  committing 
their  loved  ones  to  the  grave,  not  entering  churches  or  chapels 
prepared  for  modern  Roman  worship,  and  therefore  {inter 
alia)  for  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Judging  from 
the  way  in  which  Dr.  Northcote  interprets  monuments,  it  is 
evident  that,  in  his  view,  the  one  thing  of  which  the  faithful 
would  think  in  the  hour  of  their  bereavement,  was  the 
jurisdiction  over  other  cJuirches  implied  by  the  Papal 
pallinm  ! '"'  Or  again,  that,  in  the  eyes  of  believers  then, 
Christ,  our  Blessed  Lord,  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life, 
was  of  such  small  esteem.  His  virgin  Mother  in  such  sense 
all  in  all,  that  if  she  and  her  Divine  Infant  appear  in  the 
same  representation,  we  may  assume  that  He  is  represented 
*  simply  with  a  viezu  to  showing  zuho  she  is.' 

The  actual  construction  of  the  Catacombs  (or  rather  the 
commencement  of  their  construction)  dates,  in  some  cases, 
from  the  very  earliest  period  of  the  Roman  Church.  One 
consular  date  (in  an  inscription  which  was  removed  from 
its  place,  and  whose  locality  therefore  cannot  now  be  deter- 
mined) is  of  the  year  72  a.d.,  the  third  year  of  Vespasian. 
And  in  the  cemetery  known  generally  as  that  of  S.  Lucina, 
there  are  two  inscriptions  with  consular  dates,  belonging  to 

"'  This    seems    scarcely   credible  565),    a   scene   in   which    Christian 

even    in  a  Roman   controversialist.  mourners  would  see  a  pledge  of  the 

But  the  reader  may  judge  for  him-  sure  and  certain  hope  of  that  new 

self  by  referring  to  p.  310.     Dr.  N.  life,  of  which  their  own  loved  ones 

there   refers   to  a   representation   of  were    inheritors.     His    comment  is, 

the  ascent  of  Elias  to  heaven  on  a  '  //   would   certainly   Iiave  reminded 

sarcophagus    (it   may  be  seen  also  Roman    C/iristia?is    of  the  pallium, 

among   the    frescoes    of   the    Cata-  the  symbol  of  jurisdiction  worn  by 

combs,  see  Aringhi  R.  S.  torn.  i.  p.  the  bishops  of  Rome,'  &c.  (S:c. 


lo  THE  cui/rus  of  tiik  virgin  mary. 

I  the  years  107  and  110  a.d.  These  older  cemeteries  were 
enlarged,  and  new  ones  were  constructed,  as  time  went  on. 
But,  with  a   few  exceptions  only,  the  main  construction  of 

I  the  Catacombs  dates  from  the  three  first  centuries  ;  their 
partial  enlargement,  and  alterations  in  detail,  extend  to 
a  further  period  of  about  500  years  {circa  850  a.d.),  soon 
after  which  time  they  were  closed  up  and  forgotten,  till  the 
time  of  their  re-discovery  in  the  year  1578. 

A  separate  question  altogether,  and  for  our  present 
purpose  a  more  important  one,  is  involved,  when  we  have 
to  assign  dates  to  the  various  pictures  (for  the  most  part 
very  rude,  but  from  their  subjects  exceedingly  interesting) 
with  which  the  walls,  in  portions  of  these  cemeteries,  are 
covered.  F'or  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  that,  in 
determining  the  time  when  some  subterranean  chamber  was 
first  constructed,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  determine 
also  the  date  of  the  pictures,  or  of  the  inscriptions,  which 
now  may  appear  upon  the  walls.  This  question  of  date 
can  generally  be  determined  only  by  internal  evidence, 
leaving  room  for  considerable  difference  of  opinion,  within 
certain  limits.  But  there  are  some  general  conclusions.^ 
upon  which  all  investigators  are  practically  agreed,  and 
these  we  shall  take  as  our  guides  in  investigating  such 
questions  as  those  now  before  us. 

All  are,  as  far  as  we  know,  agreed  in  saying,  that  what 
De  Rossi  calls  the  '  Ciclo  Biblico,'  i.e.,  the  definite  series 

{  of  purely  Scriptural  subjects  represented  in  many  of-  the 
Roman  Catacombs,  belong  to  an  earlier  period  of  Chris- 
tian art  than  those  of  special  saints,  martyrs.  Bishops  of 
Rome,  and  of  other  Sees,  which  are  also  there  to  be  found. 
And    there    are    many  reasons    for    thinkin<r,   with    Sienor 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  I  i 

De   Rossi,  that  the  pictures  of  this  '  Scriptural  Cycle '  are,  ' 
with   few  exceptions,   to  be  referred  to  a  period   not  later 
than  the  third  century  of  our  era. 

The  more  special  marks,  however,  whereby  relative 
date  may  be  determined,  may  best  be  illustrated  by  actual 
examples,  such  as  will  shortly  come  before  our  readers. 
Yet  we  may  say,  speaking  generally,  that  the  latest  date 
to  any  of  the  pictures  in  the  Roman  Catacombs,  is  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century,  whereas,  in  the  mosaics  and 
frescoes  of  churches  above  ground,  we  have  a  series, 
which  commences  indeed  shortly  after  the  close '"  of  the 
fourth  century,  but  which,  in  the  form  that  they  now 
pi^esent,  may  belong  to  any  period  between  the  fourth 
century  and  the  present  time.  The  two  series,  that  of 
the  Catacombs,  and  that  of  the  churches  above  ground, 
mutually  illustrate  each  other ;  and  it  is  only  by  such 
comparison  that  their  true  history  can  be  determined,  and 
their  great  historical  importance  be  appreciated. 

With  these  few  data  to  start  with,  we  will,  without 
further  preface,  join  issue  with  Dr.  Northcote  upon  one 
of  the  three  controverted  questions  for  which  he  invokes 
the  evidence  of  these  early  monuments.  Those  questions 
are, — the  worship  due  (according  to  the  Roman  Church) 
to  the  Mother  of  our  Lord ;  the  divinely  ordained  pre-emi- 
nence of  the  Roman  See,t  as  being  the  See  of  St.  Peter ; 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments, J  particularly  that  of 
the  '  Mass.'  One  of  these  questions,  the  first,  will  more 
than    suffice    for    our    present    consideration.       We     may 

*  Exception  is  to  be  made,  probably,  for  some  few  remains  dating  from 
the  time  of  Constantine. 

t  See  Part  II.  of  this  volume.  X  See  Part  111.  ibid. 


12  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VH^GIN  I^IARY. 

possibly  deal  with  other   questions  at  some  future  oppor- 
tunity. 

Writers  who  had  preceded  Dr.  Northcote  in  speaking 
of  the  doctrinal  evidence  of  the  Catacombs,  had  noted  the 
marked  contrast  between  primitive  and  modern  Rome,  in  all 
that  relates  to  the  blessed  Mother  of  our  Lord.  One  of  these 
writers,  after  personal  examination  of  the  Catacombs  (such 
of  them  as  are  now  shown),  stated,  that  he  '  had  only  seen  a 
single  certain  specimen  of  a  painting  of  the  blessed  Virgin 
in  all  the  Catacombs,  that  this  was  of  a  comparatively  late 
date,  and  that  it  was  idle  to  attach  much  importance  to  so 
singular  an  exception.'  Upon  this  Dr.  Northcote  says,  in 
effect,  that  the  writer  in  question  evidently  knows  nothing 
about  the  matter,  as  such  paintings  are  '  very  immerotts! 
And,  in  justification  of  his  remark,  he  refers  to  two  facts. 
He  speaks  first  of  the  frequent  occurrence  of  '  Oranti,' 
figures  standing  with  outstretched  hands,  in  what  was  of  old 
the  ordinary  attihide  of  prayer.  Among  these  he  says,  is  a 
figure  of  a  woman,  which  is  frequently'"  found  as  a  com- 
panion to  the  Good  Shepherd,  and  which  '  a  multitude  of 

*  '■  A  figure  of  a  tvoman''  (the  Vir-  figure  of  the  Shepherd  occupies  the  ^ 

gin  Mary,  according  to  Dr.  North-  centre    of  the    decorated  roof  of  a 

cote)    '■frequently  found  as   a  coin-  sepulchral  chamber,   and  there  are 

panion  to  the  Good  Shepherd'     As  four  figures   of  Oranti   in    the   sur- 

a  comment   upon  these  words,   we  rounding    compartments.       In    two 

append    the    following    analysis    of  out  of  these  five  exam])les,  half  of 

twenty  examples  {all  that  are  figured  the  Oranti  are  nu^n,  and  the  others 

by  Aringhus)  in  the  Catacombs,  in  women. 

which   the   '  Good  Shepherd '   is  so  In  yet  five  more  cases,  there  are 

represented  as   /;/   a?iy  sefise  to  be  two  Oranti,  one  on  each  side  of  Our 

described   as    accompanied    by   an  Lord  (as  the  Good  Shepherd).    And 

Orante.  in  these  five,  either  both  are  women 

In    five    of  these    instances,    this  or  one  of  them  a  man,  the  other  a 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS. 


13 


considerations  '  leads  him  to  believe  was  '  intended  for  our 

blessed  Lady,  or  else  for  the  Church,  the  Bride  of  Christ, 

whose  life  upon  earth  is  a  life  of  prayer,  even  as  His  holy 

Mother    is  similarly  employed   in   Heaven.'      Of  the   two 

interpretations,  he  rather  inclines  to  the  first.      His  reasons 

for  doing  so  he  gives  at  some  length.    We  need  not  examine 

them  in  detail,  the  simple  facts  being  these  : — 

These  figures,    of  which   examples  are  here 

given,    are    of    frequent   occurrence,   as    Dr. 

Northcote  states,   and  represents  sometimes 

men,  sometimes  and  more  commonly  women, 

ill  an  attitude  ofprayer^'     Not  unfrequently 

these  '  Oranti '  are  found  (dressed  as  men,  as 

women,  or  as  children,  as  the  case  may  be) 

upon  the  actual  loculiis,  the  stone  that  encloses  the  grave. 

Is  a  Caianus,t  or  a  Respectus,|  taken  to  his  rest  in  early 

boyhood? — a  youthful  'Orante'  is  seen  upon  his  tomb,  a 

bird§  beside  him,  and  on  the  other  side,  yet  another  bird, 


woman  (in  one  case  evidently  man 
and  wife,  see  Aringhi  R.  S.  tom.  ii. 
p.  209). 

In  yet  nine  instances  more,  the 
figure  of  the  Good  Shepherd  is  seen, 
where  ///  some  part  or  otJier  of  tlic 
same  cliamber  occurs  an  Orante,  per- 
haps as  one  out  of  many  figures  on 
a  ceihng,  or  in  part  of  the  same 
ArcosoHum.  [In  one  at  least  of 
these  {ibid.  ii.  p.  257)  the  Orante  is 
a  man.']  And  in  one  only  example 
do  we  find  one  female  Orante  side 
by  side  with  a  figure  of  the  Good 
Shepherd,  such  as  will  answer  to 
Dr.  Northcote's  description.     As  to 


this  exceptional  instance,  which  is 
certainly  not  a  figure  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  see  below,  p.   17. 

*  There  was  a  special  reason  for 
tJiis  attitude  of  prayer,  rather  than 
that  of  kneeling,  should  be  repre- 
sented in  a  place  of  sepulture,  viz. 
that  this  'standing'  to  pray  was  spe- 
cially connected  with  the  thought  of 
Resurrection.  —  Justin,  '  Resp.  ad 
Orth.'  c.  6. 

t  Aringhi  R.  S.  tom.  i.  p.  606. 

X  Ibid.  tom.  ii.  p.  259. 

§  Typical,  probably,  of  the  soul 
of  the  departed.  '  The  two  birds  are 
on  the  tomb  of  Caianus. 


H 


THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 


bearing  an  olive  branch,  pledge  of  peace  and  of  new  life  to 
one  escaped  from  the  troubled  waves  of  the  world.    Or  does 


Ornamented  Glass*  tviih  Male  and  Female  Oranti. 

a  wife,  bereft  of  her  husband,  now  '  in  peace,'  commemorate t 
her  tender  love  for  her  own  '  Leo,'  and  his  approved  worth  ? 

■''  For   fuller   particulars    see   de-  male  Oxd.w'Cx,  see  tom.  ii.  pp.  63,  105 

scription  in  my   '  Vestiarium  Chris-  (four  men,  two  of  them  named^see 

tianum,'  p.   247.  Marriott's    '  Vest.    Christ.'   PI.    vi.), 

t  '  Leoni  dulcissimo  marito  cojux  pp.    109,    183,    257.     And    for   the 

Urso   se   biba    (i.  e.   viva)   beneme-  woodcut  above,   see   '  Vest.  Christ.' 

renti  in  pace.'     (Aringhi  R.  S.  tom.  p.  Ixxxiv.  and  p.  247. 
ii.  p.  135.)     For  other  examples  of 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  I  5 

— once  more  a  male  Orante  is  figured  upon  his  tomb.  Is 
it  again  a  Fautina,'"  a  Decia,t  or  a  MarcellaJ  who  is  com- 
memorated } — the  veil  upon  the  head  of  the  Orante  on 
each  tomb  would  mark  clearly,  even  if  the  inscription  were 
wanting,  that  it  is  wife,  or  mother,  or  daughter,  whose 
memory  is  here  fondly  cherished.  In  a  multitude  of  other 
instances,  where  sepulchral  chambers  {cubicula),  or  portions 
of  them,  have  been  set  apart  for  special  use,  one  or  more 
Oranti,  male  or  female,  or  both  together,  form  part  of  the 
decoration  of  the  chamber.  With  these  facts  before  them, 
few  reasonable  persons,  I  suppose,  would  come  to  any 
other  conclusion  than  that  to  which  Bosio,  Aringhus,  and 
others,  constantly  give  expression,  viz.,  that  these  Oranti 
serve  to  commemorate  the  faithful  departed. 

This  interpretation,  however,  finds  no  favour  with 
Dr.  Northcote.  He  speaks  of  it  as  a  supposition  which 
'  some  have  entertained', — one  that  'possibly  may  be  sometimes 
correct.'  But  '  in  the  majority  of  instances,'  he  '  feels  certain 
that  it  is  inadmissible.'  He  is  apparently  not  aware  that 
there  are  such  things  as  male  Oranti  (he  never,  as  far  as  we 
have  observed,  alludes  to  their  existence).  And  accord- 
ingly, his  only  doubt  is,  whether  these  figures  are  intended 
'  for  our  blessed  Lady,  or  else  for  the  Church,  the  Bride  of 
Christ.' 

We  ourselves,  after  a  careful  examination,  can  find  but 

1'  one  Orante,  properly  so  called,  in  all  the  Catacombs,  which 

can,  with  any  probability,  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  the 

Virgin  Mary.    But  while  we  state  this  without  any  hesitation 

as  our  own  opinion,  we  will  add,  that  for  any  controversial 

*  Aringhi  torn.  ii.  p.  262.  t   Ibid.  p.  262.  %  Ibid.  p.  258. 


1 6  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

results  dependent  on  the  question,  there  is  no  reason  what- 
ever that  we  should  wish  to  impugn  the  very  different 
opinion  of  Dr.   Northcote.     The  very  contrary.     A  figure 

,  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  inidistinguished  by  any  conventional 
attribiUes  fi^om  other  women,  herself  standing  in  the  attitude 
of  prayer^^' — let  this  be  contrasted  with  the  same  subject  as 
we  shall  see  it  represented  six  centuries  later — the  Virgin 
Mother  then  crowned  as  a  queen,  seated  upon  a  heavenly 
throne,  which  she  shares  with  our  blessed  Lord,  or  uplifted 
by  Seraphim  and  Cherubim,  as  the  Queen  of  Heaven,  and 

,  herself  the  object  ofmaiis  luorship  ;  this  it  is  precisely  (as  we 
shall  shortly  see)  which  constitutes  the  difference  between 
Christian  art  (and  Christian  belief)  in  the  first  five  centuries, 
and  Roman  Mariolatry  in  the  ninth,  in  the  twelfth,  or  the 
eighteenth  century. 

We  purposely  confine  ourselves  as  far  as  possible,  in  the 
present  paper,  to  matters  strictly  pertinent  to  the  special  sub- 
ject now  under  consideration.  We,  therefore,  do  not  now 
enter  at  greater  length  upon  the  subject  of  these  Oranti. 
But  in  connexion  with  this  question,  we  have  to  point  out, 
by  a  remarkable  instance,  how  very  slight  a  change,  by  even 

"■    Such     a    representation    does  latest ;  but,  as  far  as  we  can  ascer- 

occur   in    several    examples    of  the  tain,  they  have  very  little  reason  to 

Vetri  Antichi,  or  ornamented  glasses  show  for  their  opinion.     But  there 

figured  by  Garrucci  ('  Vetri  Ornati,'  are  very  strong  reasons  (of  a  techni- 

&c.   PI.  ix.   6,   7,   lo,   ii),  and  after  cal  kind,  in  reference  to  the  use  of 

him  by  Northcote,   R.  S.   PL  xviii.  the  nimbus)   for  assigning  many  of 

These  glasses,  with  few  exceptions,  them  to  the  fifth,  if  not  to  the  sixth, 

belong  to  a  period  of  very  degraded  century.     [Dr.   Littledale,  however, 

art.     Those    now   in    question   we  assures   us  that  the  art  of  making 

should  assign  to  the  fifth  century.  these  glasses  tuas  lost  at  the  end  of 

Roman  antiquaries  generally  speak  the  fourth  century.     How  he  knows 

of  them  as  of  the  fourth  century  at  that  we  are  not  informed.] 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  I  7 

a  slight  omission,  will  entirely  alter  the  character  of  a 
monument;  and  how  entirely  writers,  such  as  Dr.  Northcote,  . 
may  (though  quite  unintentionally)  mislead  their  readers, 
when  they  deal  with  archaeological  evidence,  but  do  so  at 
second  hand,  without  competent  archaeological  knowledge 
of  their  own. 

Our  readers  will  have  observed,  that  in  the  words 
already  quoted  (above,  p.  1 2)  from  Dr.  Northcote,  he  lays 
stress  upon  the  fact,  that  an  Orante  is  frequently  found  as  a 
companion  to  the  Good  Shepherd ;  and  he  adds  an  expression 
of  his  strong  belief,  founded  on  a  '  multitude  of  reasons,' 
that  this  is  intended  for  the  blessed  Mother  of  our  Lord. 
If  our  readers  will  turn  to  his  Plate  viii.,  reproduced,  as  he 
states  it  is,  from  Bosio,  they  will  find  what  is  apparently  the 
strongest  confirmation  of  the  statement  that  he  had  made. 
They  will  see  an  Orante  represented  side  by  side  with  our 
Lord  (symbolised  as  the  Good  Shepherd),  and  forming  with 
Him  one  composition,  in  which  the  juxta-position  of  the  two 
figures  was  evidently  designed.  The  picture,  as  given,  is 
just  what  Dr.  Northcote  could  most  wish  to  prove  his  point. 
We  ourselves  came  upon  it  accidentally,  just  after  a  careful 
examination  of  all  the  pictures  in  the  Catacombs,  as  given 
by  Bosio  and  Aringhus.  Almost  the  last  sentence  that  we 
had  written,  in  summing  up  the  results  of  the  investigation, 
was  this  :  '  In  one  only  example  do  we  find  a  single  figure 
of  a  female  so  placed  side  by  side  with  the  "  Good  Shep- 
herd," as  to  form  with  Him  what  was  evidently  intended  to 
be  a  studied  and  significant  juxta-position,  and  to  make  up, 
between  the  two,  a  complete  picture.  Ajid  in  this  one 
exceptional  instance,  the  Orante  is  clearly  marked  out  as  a 
Christian  martyr   by  the  "  attribute "  of  an    instrument  of 

c 


iS  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

/orhire,  a  scourge  loaded  with  lead  or  iron^''  which  is  painted 
on  a  large  scale  beside  her!  Our  astonishment  may  be  ima- 
gined, when,  on  turning  to  Dr.  Northcote's  Plates,  the 
moment  after  writing  this,  we  found  this  very  fresco  referred 
to  (in  the  catalogue)  as  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Good 
Shepherd  ;  and  the  one  fcatiwe  which  ivas  specially  character- 
istic of  it,  serving  at  once  to  deternmie  its  meaning,  had  been 
removed  from  the  picture,  and  not  the  slightest  reference  made 
anywhei^e  to  its  existence.  Had  this  remarkable  feature  in 
the  picture  been  preserved,  any  skilled  antiquary  would  at 
once  have  seen,  that  the  picture  could  not  possibly  be  in- 
tended for  the  Virgin  Mary.  And  even  ordinary  observers 
could  scarce  have  failed  to  feel,  as  it  were  by  intuition,  that 
Dr.  Northcote's  interpretation  could  hardly  be  the  true  one. 
But  in  Dr.  Northcote's  work  the  picture  appears  catalogued 
as  '  The  Good  Shepherd  and  the  blessed  Virgin,'  and  a 
reference  is  made  to  Boslo,  p.  387.  We  ourselves  felt 
pretty  certain,  on  seeing  this  reference,  that  Bosio  would 
not  bear  out  this  description.  We  turned  to  his  pages,  and 
found  exactly  what  we  had  anticipated.  '  Una  Donna 
orante,'  says  that  writer,  '  a  woman  in  the  act  of  prayer,' 
without  one  word  as  to  any  even  possible  reference  to  the 
Virgin  Mary. 

What  do  our  readers  suppose  to  be  the  explanation 
of  this  extraordinary  misrepresentation  '^  It  is  one,  we  are 
glad  to  be  able  to  say  it,  which  explains  entirely  how 
Dr.  Northcote  came  to  be  himself  deceived  as  to  the^  real 
facts  of  the  case,  while  the  Roman  artist  employed   (pro- 


*  '  Flagellum  quoddam  ad  corpus  excruciandum,'  is  the  description  of 
Aringhus. . 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS 


19 


bably  not  an  archseologist  at  all)  was,  of  course,  equally 
guiltless  of  any  intentional  misrepresentation.  The  answer 
may  best  be  given  in  Dr.  Northcote's  own""  words  :  '  It  is 
no  news  to  those  who  received  our  prospectus,  inviting 
them  to  subscribe  to  the  work  before  publication,  but  it  is  a 
fact  which  was  unaccountably  omitted  in  our  Preface  to  the 
volume  itself  when  published,  and  therefore  is  new  to  your 
Reviewer,  that  all  the  twenty  Plates,  as  well  as  the  Map, 
were  prepared  for  us  by  De  Rossi  himself,  executed  under 
his  own  eye  at  the  Cromolitografia  Pontificia  in  Rome,  and 
the  impressions  sent  to  us  from  that  city  exactly  as  they 

now  are Eighteen  of  the  drawings  for  these  Plates 

were  taken  from  the  originals.  For  Plates  VIII.  and  XL, 
he  had  an  order  from  us  to  provide  a  specimen  of  Noah 
in  his  Ark  ;  the  Three  Children  in  the  Fiery  Furnace ; 
the  Raising  of  Lazarus  ;  and  an  Orante.  [I  have  the  cor- 
respondence before  me  as  I  write.]  When  sending  me  the 
proofs  of  the  impressions,  he  apologised  for  the  different 
and  inferior  style  of  these  ;  but  said  he  did  not  understand 
us  to  want  any  special  instances  of  these  subjects,  and 
therefore  he  had  not  hesitated  to  spare  himself  trouble  by 
taking  them  from  books  instead  of  going  to  the  Catacombs 

*  In  a  letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  not  have  used  had  I  been  aware  of 

'Christian  Observer'  (No.  384,  Dec.  the  facts  subsequently  stated  by  Dr. 

1869,  p.  942).     I   take  this  oppor-  Northcote.     I  should  perhaps  add, 

tunity  of  renewing  the  expression  of  what  I  learn  from  the  same  letter, 

my  regret,  that  in  the  first  edition  of  that  Dr.  Northcote  did  not  himself 

this  paper  (which  was  a  review  of  draw  up  the  Catalogue  of  Plates  in 

Dr.  Northcote's  book)   I   spoke   in  which   this   fresco    is    described   as 

language  of  strong  condemnation  in  '  The  Good  Shepherd  and  the  Blessed 

reference   to   the   misrepresentation  Virs,in^ 
here   pointed    out,   which   I   should 


20  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

for  them  ;  and  he  wrote  on  the  back  of  the  proofs  the 
references  to  Bosio  which  we  printed.  I  neither  looked 
into  Bosio  myself,  nor  was  at  all  aware,  until  I  read  the 
article  in  the  "  Christian  Observer,"  that  the  necessity  of 
getting  into  the  same  Plate  a  representation  of  Noah  and 
his  Ark  as  well  as  an  Orante,  had  caused  De  Rossi's  artist 
to  omit  a  single  line  of  the  drawing  which  he  copied.' 

We  dwell  upon  this  point  the  rather,  because  it  will 
suggest  a  very  important  lesson  for  those  who  are  obliged 
to  take,  their  knowledge  of  antiquity  for  the  most  part  at 
second-hand,  on  the  authority,  It  may  be,  of  controversialists 
engaged  In  maintaining  a  particular  thesis.  The  '  scourge  ' 
at  the  side  of  this  picture  is  what  context  is  in  a  quotation 
from  an  ancient  author.  This  context,  so  to  call  it,  is 
omitted,  first,  by  the  copyist  in  ignorance  of  its  Importance, 
and  then  left  unnoticed  by  Dr.  Northcote,  who  knows 
nothing  of  its  existence.  And,  accordingly,  he  publishes 
the  picture  in  question,  in  perfect  good  faith,  but  in  a  shape 
zvhich  entirely  misrepresents  its  trtte  meaning.  This  is 
precisely  what  may  be  seen  illustrated  In  almost  every  page 
of  much  of  the  controversial  Divinity  that  is  put  forth  now, 
and,  for  that  matter,  in  the  controversial  Divinity  of  every 
age,  as  far  as  we  have  observed.  Sentences,  or  half-sen- 
tences, as  the  case  may  be,  can  be  quoted  with  the  greatest 
ease  from  Fathers  in  East  and  West,  from  Inscriptions  and 
the  like,  to  prove  conclusions  the  most  diametrically  con- 
tradictory the  one  of  the  other,  when  they  are  adopted 
(as  controversial  writers  constantly  do  adopt  them)  at 
second-hand,  and  without  stating,  probably  without  know- 
ing, the  context  in  which  they  occur.  The  omission  of  a 
concluding  clause,  the  slight  colouring  of  a  difficult  expres- 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  2  1 

sion,  which  is  given  with  unconscious  bias  in  the  course 
of  translation  from  ancient  into  modern  laneuacres.  the 
sHght  variations  of  expression  introduced  by  late  (and  often 
ignorant)  copyists,  and  the  various  readings  of  MSS. 
thence  resulting,  the  introduction,  into  the  text  of  an 
ancient  author,  of  marginal  annotations,  expressive  of  the 
changed  ideas  which  had  possession  of  later  students  — 
these,  or  any  one  of  these  (to  say  nothing  now  of  inten- 
tional omissions,  or  conscious  falsifications),  are  often  quite 
sufficient  to  make  an  ancient  author,  as  quoted^  appear  to 
affirm  the  very  contrary  of  what,  on  fuller  examination  of 
the  original  (where  the  true  texts  can  be  determined),  we 
shall  find  that  he  actually  does  say.  We  shall  have  to 
notice  many  examples  of  this  in  the  present  treatise.  Fla- 
grant examples  of  such  carelessness  (we  use  too  light  a 
term)  abound  in  the  '  Catenae  of  Patristic  Testimonies,' 
and  of  the  earlier  English  Divines,  which  have  been 
produced  of  late  years  among  ourselves  in  reference  to  the 
controverted  questions  of  the  day. 

We  are  glad  to  return  to  the  point  from  which  we  have 
digressed,  and  to  resume  our  investigation  of  the  subject 
upon  which  we  are  engaged.  Quitting  the  discussion  of  these 
Oranti,  Dr.  Northcote  proceeds  to  say,  that  whatever  may 
be  thought  of  the  cogency  of  his  arguments  on  this  first 
head,  '  the  question  of  Our  Lady's  position  in  the  most 
ancient  field  of  Christian  art  by  no  means  depends  upon 
them.  If  these  paintings  do  not  rejDresent  her,  yet  she 
certainly  appears  in  vioi^e  than  a  score  of  other  scenes,  where 
her  identity  cannot  be  questioned!  We  are  sorry  to  find 
ourselves  continually  finding  fault,  but  again  we  are  obliged 
to   say,    that    Dr.    Northcote    evidently   forgets    the    right 


22 


TIFK  CUr.TUS  OF  THK  VIRGIN   MARV 


meaning  of  words.  This  imposing  phrase  of  '  moi'c  than  a 
score  of  other  sccnesl  means  only  that  the  purely  Scriptural 
subject  of  the  adoration  of  our  blessed  Lord  by  the  Magi 
is  represented  more  than  twenty  times  (as  he  states  shortly 
afterwards)  in  various  parts  of  the  Catacombs.  One  scene 
it  is,  and  not  twenty,  though  that  one  again  and  again 
represented  with  slight  variations  of  treatment.  One'"  of 
them  may  be  seen  below. 


And  what  is  the  scene  thus  repeatedly  dwelt  on  by  the. 
Church  of  Rome  as  once  she  was  ?  Is  it  one,  which,  like 
those  shortly  to  be  set  before  our  readers,  exhibits  the 
mother  of  our  Lord  as  herself  an  object  of  worship  to  the 
faithful  ?  The  very  contrary.  Among  the  various  Scrip- 
tural subjects  on  which  these  early  Christians  loved  to 
dwell,  this  of  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  was  prominent,  as 
an  emphatic  testimony  to  the  Divinity  of  our  blessed  Lord, 


From  the  Cemetery  of  SS.   Marcellinus  and  Petrus.      Aringhi  t.  ii. 


p.    117. 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBb.  23 

and  as  the  earnest  of  the  coming  in  of  the  Gentiles  into 
the  one  fold  of  Christ.  In  this  picture  they  were  re- 
minded''^ how  these  Magi,  the  first-fruits  of  the  Gentile 
Church,  when  they  saw  the  young  child  and  His  mother, 
fell  doivn  and  ivoi^shippcd  Him.  A  later  monument  will 
show  us  what  Roman  art  taught  in  the  twelfth  century. 
Our  readers  will  there  see  two  Popes,  who,  like  those  Magi 
of  old,  are  represented  as  in  the  presence  of  that  young 
Child  and  His  Mother,  and  they,  as  will  be  seen,  fall  down 
and  worship  her. 

Such  are  the  facts  in  regard  of  the  '  more  than  a  score  of 
scenes'  referred  to  by  Dr.  Northcote.  But,  besides  this  one 
scene  thus  marvellously  multiplied  by  our  author,  there  are 
really  two  or  three  other  '  scenes,'  represented  in  the  Cata- 
combs, in  which  the  blessed  Virgin  is  depicted. 


*  We  do  not  say  this  without  di-  c.  xix. ;  St.  Ambrose  in  Evang.  Luc. 
rect  evidence  of  what  really  was  the  lib.  ii. ;  St.  Augustine  (his  Epiphany 
feeling  of  early  Christendom  in  this  Sermons,  passim).  We  need  not 
matter.  Our  readers  may  refer  to  refer  to  writers  in  the  West,  extend- 
any  or  all  of  the  following  passages,  ing  beyond  the  fourth  century,  such 
and  they  will  see  (what  but  for  Dr.  as  Leo  the  Great,  Petrus  Chryso- 
Northcote's  mode  of  arguing  might  logus,  and  Fulgentius,  though  they 
well  be  deemed  scarcely  to  need  too  all  hold  similar  language.  Among 
proof)  that  the  teachers  of  early  Eastern  writers,  it  is  sufficient  to 
days  dwelt  with  one  voice  upon  this  name  Clement  Alex.  (Pged.  ii.  8)  ; 
j  subject  of  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  Origen  (lib.  i.  c.  Celsum,  p.  46); 
as  a  proof  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Chrysostom  in  his  Homilies  on  St. 
Lord.,  without  any  the  slightest  re-  Matthew  (Migne,  vol.  i.  p.  609  sqq.)^ 
ference  to  any  worship  or  adoration  and  St.  Basil  the  Great,  Homil.  in 
due  to  the  blessed  Virgin  herself  Sanctam  Christi  Generationem,  pj). 
See  Justin  Martyr,  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  600,  601,  ed.  Bened.  vol.  ii.  [This 
Migne,  P.  C.  C.  tom.  vi.  p.  654,  al.  Homily,  however,  is  probably  not 
174;  St.  Irensei  contr.  Hter.  lib.  iii.  St.  Basil's,  though  of  early  date.] 
c.  ii. ;  St.  Jerome  in  Esaiam,  lib.  vii. 


24 


TIIK  CUI/rUS  f)F  TIIK  VIRGIN   MARY 


In  one  of  these"  (not  described  by  Dr.  Northcotc)  is 
probably  represented  the  Anniintiation,  in  which  the  angel 
Gabriel  (a  human  figure,  without  wings  or  other  attributes, 
such  as  were  assigned  at  a  later  period  to  the  angels,)  is 
seen  standing  before  a  seated  female  figure,  and,  with 
extended  hand,  addressing  her.  Perhaps  the  oldest  of  all 
these  representations,  however  (De  Rossi  believes  it  to  be 
almost  of  the  Apostolic  age),  is  that  which  is  represented 
below.      The  natural,  and,   as   we   incline  to  believe,    the 


true,  interpretation  of  this  picture,  recognises  in  it  the  Holy 
Family,  Joseph  on  the  left  hand  (spectator's  left),  the  Holy 
Child,  and  His  Mother;  while  the  Star  that  is  seen  above 


*  In  the  Cemetery  of  S.  Priscilla.      with  absohite  certainty,  the  true  one. 
The   interpretation   above   given  is      See  Bottari,  Sculture  e  Pitture  sagre, 


that  commonly  received  by  anticjiia- 
ries,   and    is    probably,   though   not 


etc.  Tav.  clxxvi. 


evidp:nce  of  the  catacombs.  25 

(to  which  Joseph,  if  such  he  be,  is  pointing)  serves  to  deter- 
mine the  general  subject  of  the  picture  beyond  all  possi- 
bility of  mistake.  Roman  Catholic  writers,  however  (for 
reasons  on  which  we  need  not  here  dwell),  generally 
modify  this  explanation  in  one  particular,  De  Rossi  sug- 
gests that  the  figure,  of  which  we  now  speak,  may  be  the 
impersonation  of  one  of  the  Prophets  of  the  old  Covenant 
(probably  of  Isaiah),  pointing  onward  to  the  Star  of 
Bethlehem,  and  the  Virgin  Mother  with  her  Holy  Child, 
as  the  great  subject  of  prophetic  witness.  ['  The  spirit  of 
prophecy  is  the  testimony  of  Jesus.']  For  ourselves,  we 
see  no  necessity  for  this  explanation.  But  if  any  prefer 
it  to  the  other  and  simpler  interpretation,  we  are  in  no  way 
concerned,  for  any  controversial  reasons,  to  quarrel  with 
his  judgment.  Here,  however,  as  in  other  cases.  Dr. 
Northcote  contrives  to  put  himself  in  the  wrong,  simply 
because  he  is  bent  upon  improving  the  occasion  for  his 
own  special  purposes.  He  calls  special  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the   Blessed  Virorin  does  not  enter  here  into   the 

O 

composition  of  an  historical  or  allegorical  scene  as  a  secondary 
personage^  bttt  herself  stipplies  the  motive,  so  to  speak,  of  the 
whole  painting.  This  criticism  will  probably  appear  to  our 
readers  to  be  true  in  a  certain  sense,  at  any  rate  intelli- 
gible, when  they  view  the  picture  as  given  by  Dr.  North- 
cote, or  as  it  is  here  sketched  in  our  own  woodcut.  One 
who  only  knew  the  picture  from  such  representations, 
might  naturally  imagine  it  to  be  complete  in  itself;  a 
picture,  probably,  of  considerable  size,  and  occupying  the 
most  conspicuous  place  upon  the  wall  of  some  sepulchral 
chamber  in  the  Catacombs.  But  in  all  these  expectations 
he    would    be    wholly    mistaken.      These   figures,   in   their 


26  TllK  CUI/rUS  OF    liu:  virgin  MARY. 

original  position,  form  a  very  small  portion  of  a  piece  of 
decorative  work,  which,  with  the  single  exception  of  this 
group,  might  have  been  found  in  the  tomb  of  the  Nasos, 
or  any  other  purely  Pagan  building.  [The  figure  of  the 
Good  Shepherd  there  traced  was  classical  before  it  became 
Christian.]  But  the  criticism  in  question  will  be  very 
differently  judged  by  one  who  views  the  picture  with  its 
actual  surroundings,  as  it  is  given '"  by  De  Rossi.  For  the 
three  figures  which,  as  here  given,  at  once  arrest  attention, 
as  might  a  large  picture  of  the  same  subject  by  Raphael, 
in  any  modern  collection,  are,  in  the  original,  obscurely 
placed,  so  as  not  even  to  face  the  spectator ;  as  we  look 
at  them,  their  position  is  horizontal,  not  perpendicular. 
And  these  circumstances,  combined  with  that  of  the  small 
scale  on  which  they  are  drawn,  give  them  the  appearance  of 
forming  a  subordinate  part  of  a  merely  ornamental  design  ; 
and  that  to  such  a  degree,  that  none  but  an  accurate 
observer  would  be  likely  to  notice  their  real  character. 
And  these  particulars,  to  one  who  has  studied  the  subject 
with  any  accuracy,  will  constitute  a  strong  argument  for 
the  extreme  antiquity  of  the  work  in  question.  For  it  is 
notable,  that  in  the  very  earliest  period  of  Christian  art  in, 
the  Catacombs,  there  is  little  or  nothing  that  has  an  exclu- 
sively Christian  character  ;  but  the  older  pagan  forms  of 
decoration  are  adhered  to,  sometimes,  as  the  subjects  indi- 
cate, by  way  of  decoration,  and  nothing  more  ;  while  in  other 
cases,  as  in  figures  of  a  Shepherd,  or  of  Orpheus  charming 

*  '  Imagines  Selects  Deiparae  Vir-  J.  H.  Parker,  a  careful  observer, 
ginis,'  PI.  iv.  (in  which  the  context  is  and  experienced  antiquary,  assigns 
given),  compared  with  PI.  i.     [Mr.      this  picture  to  the  year  523  a.d.] 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  27 

I  wild    beasts  by   the  sweet  tones   of  his  lyre,  a  symbohcal 
reference  was  conveyed. 

Let  the  reader  turn  from  this  criticism  of  Dr.  North- 
cote's  to  the  actual  drawings,  as  they  are  reproduced,  with 
the  greatest  care,  by  De  Rossi,"  and  he  will  see  for  himself 
by  what  toitrs  de  foi^ce  of  imagination  modern  Romanism  is 
discovered,  by  such  as  are  determined  to  find  it,  among 
the  records  of  primitive  antiquity. 

To  sum  up  briefly  this  portion  of  our  subject,  the 
facts,  as  even  Dr.  Northcote  himself  would  have  to  admit, 
are  these.  In  those  earliest  decorations  of  the  Catacombs, 
which  De  Rossi  and  other  Roman  Antiquaries  believe 
(and  probably  with  good  reason)  to  be  before  the  age  of 
Constantine,  representations  of  the  Virgin  Mary  occur  only 
in  such  connexion  as  is  directly  suggested  by  Holy  Scripture. 
One  picture  there  is  of  the  Holy  Family  at  Bethlehem 
(that  already  represented) ;  one  (probably)  of  the  Annun- 
tiation  ;  and  there  are  upwards  of  twenty  (we  here  follow 
De  Rossi)  of  the  Adoration  of  the  holy  Child  by  the 
Magi,  in  all  of  which,  of  course,  the  blessed  Mother  of 
our  Lord  is  one  of  the  persons  represented.  If,  in  deference 
to  Dr.  Northcote's  opinion,  or  upon  any  other  grounds, 
any  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  some  of  the  Oranti 
figures  may  have  reference  to  her,  even  then  the  state- 
ment that  follows  will  be  in  no  way  invalidated.  With  that 
statement  we  sum  up  our  investigation  of  the  subject  as 
regards  the  Christian  art  of  the  first  three  centuries.  In 
no  one  picture  of  those  which  even  Dr.  Northcote  himself 
could  claim  as  antecedent  in  date  to  the  age  of  Constan- 

*  See  n-ote  in  preceding  page. 


28  TIIK  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

tine,  is  there  anything  which  would  appear  strange  or  out 
of  place,  on  doctrinal  grounds,  in  an  illustrated  Bible,  put 
forth,  let  us  say,  for  the  use  of  English  Sunday  Schools 
by  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge.  And 
this  being  so,  our  readers  may  judge  what  amount  of 
evidence,  in  favour  of  modern  '  Marianism,'  is  to  be  ob- 
tained from  the  witness  of  really  primitive  Christendom  at 
Rome. 

Fourth  Cenhtry. 

One  picture  there  is  in  the  Catacombs,  not  yet  described, 
which  may  perhaps  be  as  early  as  the  fourth  century. 
We  ourselves  believe  that  it  should  be  assigned  rather  to 
the  fifth  century  than  the  fourth.  But  as  we  wish  to  meet 
upon  common  ground  of  fact,  as  far  as  may  be,  those  from 
whom  we  differ  in  our  conclusions  from  those  facts,  we  will 
assume  that  it  belongs  to  the  century  immediately  succeed- 
ing the  three  already  examined. 

The  picture  of  which  we  speak,"'  is  a  fresco  in  the  Ceme- 
tery of  St.  Agnes  on  the  Via  Nomentana.  It  is  a  picture 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  Holy  Child  ;  the  picture  here,  for 
the  first  time,  being  in  the  character  of  2i portrait  of  the  two," 
as  distinct  from  the  suggestion  of  a  historical  (and  Scriptural) 
subject.  In  point  of  style,  it  departs  widely  from  the  older 
type,  and  is  of  Byzantine  character,  probably  painted  (as 
most  of  the  later  work  at  Rome  was)  by  a  Byzantine  artist. 
Neither  the  Holy  Child,  nor  the  Virgin,  have  the  nimbus  ; 
the  latter  is  in  the  attitude  of  prayer  (like  that  of  the  Oranti 

*  De  Rossi,  '  Imagines  Selectae,  observe  the  surroundings  of  the  pic- 
etc'  Tab.  vi.  Northcote,  p.  257.  ture  as  shown  by  Bosio,  p.  451  ; 
Students  of  antiiiuity  should  further      Aringhi  t.  ii.  p.  209. 


EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CATACOMBS.  29 

already  described).  A  growing  taste  for  costly  ornament  is 
indicated  in  the  addition  (here  first  seen)  of  a  necklace  of 
jewels  about  the  neck  of  the  Virgin.  On  either  side  is  the 
sacred  monogram,  which  spoke  to  early  Christians  at  once 
of  Christ,  and  of  Christ  crucified. 

Here  again,  though  there  is  great  degradation,  in  point 
of  taste,  in  the  figure  of  the  Virgin  Mary  as  compared  with 
that  seen  in  the  Holy  Family  at  Bethlehem  above  figured 
(p.  24),  yet  there  is  nothing  to  which,  on  doctrinal  grounds, 
any  English  Churchmen  need  for  a  moment  object. 

What  do  our  readers  suppose  to  be  Dr.  Northcote's 
comment  upon  this  fresco  ?  It  is  scarcely  credible  that  a 
man  of  real  piety,  as  we  doubt  not  he  is  (though  of  super- 
stitious piety),  should  bring  himself  so  to  write.  He  says, 
seriously,  that  the  Divine  Infant  *■  is  placed  in  front  of  his 
virgin  mother  simply  to  show  who  she  is.'  And  he  evidently 
thinks  that  there  is  a  strong  argument  in  proof  of  Mary 
worship  in  the  fourth  century,  in  the  fact  to  which  he  calls 
special  attention,  viz.,  that  'The  Christian  monogram  on 
either  side  is  turned  towards  her!'''  What  a  picture  is 
here  of  the  kind  of  comment  which  passes  current  for  con- 
clusive argument,  when  men  go  to  antiquity  with  their  heads 
full  of  modern  Romanism,  and  come  away  again,  bringing 
back  precisely  what  they  had  taken  with  them  I 

For  ourselves,  we  need  not  dwell  further  upon  this 
picture,  though  it  is  one  of  considerable  interest  as  bearing 
upon  the  history  of  art  at  Rome.  In  respect  of  our  own 
theological  inquiry,  we  have  only  to  note,  that  in  this  picture 

*  As  the  Holy  Child  is  standing  placed  than  it  is.  Being  '  turned 
before  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  mono-  towards '  our  Lord,  it  is  also  turned 
gram  could  not  well   be    otherwise      towards  the  Virgin. 


30  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VH^GIN  MARY. 

(whatever  be  its  real  date)  we  pass,  from  the  representation 
of  Scriptural  Jiistory,  to  the  representation  of  Scriptural  per- 
sonages as  such.  This  transition  is  one  wliich  is  not  without 
I  significance  as  bearing  upon  the  gradual  development  of 
\  I  mage- worship  in  the  Church,  l^ut  in  itself,  this  picture, 
like  those  earlier  frescoes  already  considered,  presents 
nothing  that  on  doctrinal  grounds  can  be  objected  to.  Far 
from  this  being  the  case,  if  we  place  ourselves  in  the  same 
position  as  those  earlier  Christians,  all  unwitting  as  they 
must  have  been  of  the  ages  of  gross  ignorance  and  super- 

{  stition  which  were  approaching,  we  can  enter  into  and  share 
the  feeling  of  devotion,  and  of  true  Christian  faith,  with 
which  they,  in  committing  their  departed  ones  to  the  grave, 
would  find  their  one  comfort  in  the  thought,  recalled  to 
them  by  pictures  such  as  these,  of  the  unfailing  love,  and 
ever  present  power,  of  Him  who  was  born  of  Mary.  It 
was  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation  which  they  embodied  in 
their  pictures  of  the  Virgin  mother  and  her  holy  Child. 

*    '  Christ   crucified,'  they  recalled,    even    in  the    emblematic 

}  letters  inscribed  beside  Him  ;  Christ  the  Good  Physician, 
of  body  and  of  soul,  in  their  oft-repeated  pictures  of  the 
healing  of  the  sick,  or  the  giving  sight  to  the  blind  ;    Christ" 

\   the  Bread  from  Heaven,  in  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  ;  Christ 

f   the  Prince  of  Life,  in  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  grave  ; 

'  Christ  the  Star  risen  out  of  Jacob,  and  the  Desire  of  all 
nations,  in  the  star-led  Magi,  laying  their  offering  at  His 
feet  in  Bethlehem  ;  Christ,  above  all,  under  that  form  which 
to  Christian  hearts  is  the  tenderest  and  most  lovinof  embodi- 

I   ment  of  their  Lord,  the  Good  Shepherd,  bearing  back  upon 
His  shoulders  the  lamb,  that,  but  for  Him,  had  been  lost. 
We  pass  now  from  these  memorials  of  primitive  faith  in 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  LATER  MONUMENTS.  3  I 

the  Catacombs  to  a  new  series  of  monuments,  and  of  far 
other  character,  in  the  Churches  above  ground,  from  the 
fifth  century  of  our  era  to  the  present  time. 

Character  of  ike  Later  Monuments. 

We  have  been  occupied  hitherto  with  monuments  the 
date  of  which  can  only  be  approximately  determined,  but  of 
which  (with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  last  described) 
there  are  the  strongest  reasons  for  believing  that  they  are, 
at  any  rate,  antecedent""  to  the  year  400  a.d.  We 
proceed  now  to  consider  some  later  works,  the  date  of 
which  can  be  determined  much  more  exactly.  And  as  in- 
troductory to  this  part  of  our  subject,  we  will  quote  a  very 
significant  sentence  from  Dr.  Northcote  himself.  Speak- 
ing of  the  difference  between  the  earlier  and  the  later 
representations  of  '  St.  Joseph,'  he  states  that  the  later 
artists  (from  the  fifth  century  t  onwards)  probably  followed 

*  In  saying  this,  we  state  what  is  wards.'     We  know  of  no  works  of 

our  own  behef  upon  a  disputed  ques-  art  in  the  West,  embodying  unmis- 

tion  ;  and  we  do  so  the  more  rea-  takably  these  Apocryphal    legends, 

dily,  because  it  places  us  in  accord,  which  can  with  any  probability  be 

as  to  questions  of  fact,  with  those  assigned  to  a  date  earlier  than  500 

Roman  controversialists  whose  de-  a.d.     The  earliest  example  known 

ductions   from   those   facts   we   im-  is  the  Diptych  of  Milan,  figured  and 

pugn.     We  are  glad  to  be  able  thus  fully  described  in  Bugati,  '  Memorie 

far  to  meet  them  on  common  ground,  di  S.  Celso  Martire,'  App.  Tav.  i.  ii. 

But  some  antiquaries,   of  consider-  There  is  little  doubt  that  this  dates 

able  repute,  attribute  to  the  fourth  from   the  sixth  century.     The  An- 

and  fifth  centuries  frescoes  which  De  nuntiation  is  there  represented  just 

Rossi  (followed  by  Dr.  Northcote)  as  it  is  described  in  the  Apocryphal 

considers  to  be  of  the  second  and  Gospel  of  St.  James  (Fabricii  Codex 

third.  Apocr.  Nov.    Test.   tom.   i.   p.  91). 

t  '  From     the    fifth    centur)^    on-  Another    early    example    (probably 


32 


THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 


'  legends  concerning  liim  zvhicJi  occur  in  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels,  especially  that  which  bears  the  name  of  St.  James 
the  Less,  and  those  on  the  birth  of  Mary  and  infancy  of 
our  Saviour.  '  These  legends  had  been  quoted  by  St. 
Epiphanius,  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  other  writers  of 
the  fourth  century ;  and  allusions  to  them,  or  even  whole 
scenes  taken  from  them,  occur  in  the  artistic  monuments  of 
the  fifth  and  succeeding  centuries.  Before  this  time  Chris- 
tian artists  seem  strictly  to  have  been  kept  ivithin  the  limits 
of  the  CanonicaV''  Books  of  holy  Sciaptiu^e.  Afterwards  it 
.was  probably  considered  that  there  was  no  longer  any 
danger  to  the  integrity  of  the  faith,  and  greater  license  was 
given  both  to  poets  and  artists.'  Thus  far  Dr.  Northcote. 
Whether  this  assumed  consideration  of  probabilities  was 
verified  in  the  course  of  time,  our  readers  will  shortly  be 
able  to  judge. 

With  this  much  of  preface,  we  may  now  proceed.  We 
are  now  to  emerge  from  the  Catacombs,  and  leave 
unnoticed  those  later  t  pictures,  there  existing,  whose  date 
can  only  be  approximately  determined,  J  and   we    proceed 


not  earlier  than  the  sixth  century) 
is  to  be  seen  in  the  Church  of  S. 
Giovannino  at  S.  Maximin  in  Pro- 
vence. The  Virgin  Mary  is  there 
described  as  Menester  (Minister) 
Ecclesige  Hierusalem. 

*  '  Canonical '  from  the  Roman 
point  of  view,  Dr.  Northcote,  of 
course,  means.  He  is  speaking  of 
Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
.1  Apocryphal  Gospels,  and  such-like 
books,  which   found    circulation   in 


the  West  during  the  fifth  century, 
and  were  formally  condemned  by 
Gelasius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  a.d.  495. 

t  '  Later  pictures.'  See  particu- 
larly Aringhi  R.  S.  t.  ii.  p.  354-5 
(very  interesting  on  archaeological 
grounds,  but  of  no  doctrinal  import- 
ance), and  the  latest  of  the  pictures 
figured  by  De  Rossi  in  his  '  Imagines 
Selectae  Deiparse  Virginis.' 

X  Together  with  these  we  pass 
over  also  the  '  Vetri  antichi,'  the 
ornamented  glasses  found  here  and 


CHARACTER  OF  THE  LATER  MONUMENTS.  33 

to  speak  of  some  other  monuments,  whose  date  admits 
of  being  closely  fixed.  The  objects,  of  which  we  now 
speak,  are  the  mosaic  decorations  of  churches  at  Rome 
and  Ravenna,  the  frescoes  on  the  long-buried  walls  below 
the  Church  of  St.  Clement  at  Rome,  and  one  or  two 
others  that  are  less   well   known. 

Of  these  monuments  there  are  some  few,  which  date 
from  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  And  these 
mosaics,  executed,  as  we  know  them  to  have  been,  under 
the  immediate  superintendence  of  the  highest  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  in  Rome  or  Ravenna,  as  the  case  might  be,  are, 
from  that  circumstance,  of  especial  value  as  indications  of 
received  doctrine.  The  simple  records  of  family  affection, 
which  abound  in  the  Catacombs,  picture  to  us,  in  their  few 
touching  words  of  love,  and  faith,  and  hope,  how  in  very 
truth,  to  the  humblest  Christian,  death  had  been  robbed 
of  its  sting ;  how  the  grave  had  become  the  gate  of 
peaceful ""  rest ;  and  death,  as  men  deem  death,  only  a 
blessed  sleep  t  to  them  that  rest  in  the  Lord.  But  the 
elaborate  mosaics  with  which,  from  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century  onwards,  so  many  churches,  both  of  East  and  West, 


there  in  the  Catacombs.     Of  their  '  Heth  in  peace,'  '  rests  in  peace,' — 

date  we   have   already  said   a   few  these  are  recurrent  forms  in  the  in- 

words.     A  full  treatment  of  the  sub-  scriptions  of  the   Catacombs.     And 

ject  would  require  a  treatise  in  itself  ;  here  and  there,  but  much  less  com- 

But  when  all  were   said  that  could  monly,  are  such  expressions  as  '  In 

be,   on    either  side,  the  main  argu-  pace    requiescat.'      (Aringhi    R.    S. 

ment  of  our  present  paper  would  be  torn.  ii.  p.   140.) 

in  no  way  dependent  on,  or  affected  t  The  day  of  death  is  often  '  dor- 

by,  the  conclusion  reached.  initio^    '  a   falling   to    sleep.'      The 

*  'In  peace,'  'received  into  peace,'  same  word  is  often  used  of  the  place 

'  committed  to  the  ground  in  peace,'  of  burial. 

D 


34  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

were  decorated,  though  they  lack  this  personal  interest, 
have  a  value  all  their  own,  as  being  deliberate  expressions 
of  theological  belief.  They  are  little  less  than  embodied 
Creeds,  reflecting  from  century  to  century  the  prevailing 
tone  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  those  of  highest  authority 
in  the  Church.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  may  proceed  now 
to  consider  what  are  the  facts  presented  to  us,  on  examina- 

i  tion  of  the  series  of  monuments  of  the  fifth  and  later  cen- 
turies, which  immediately  succeed,  in  historical  order,  those 

I    earlier  frescoes,  of  the  '  Biblical  Cycle,'  in  the  Catacombs. 

Mosaics  at  Rome  and  Ravenna  from  400  a.d,  to  600  a.d. 

The  character  of  the  elaborate  mosaics  which  date  from 
this  period  is  well  described  by  Seroux  d'Agincourt  in  his 
'  HIstoire  de  I'Art  par  ses  Monuments.'  [In  this  case, 
as  in  other  citations  from  modern  authors,  we  purposely 
quote  from  Roman  Catholic  writers,  as  being  free  from 
any  suspicion  of  '  Protestant  prejudice '  in  what  they  write.] 
Describing""  some  of  the  more  important  mosaics  dating 
from  the  fifth  century,  he  writes  as  follows  : — '  In  the 
mosaics  before  us,  what  most  deserves  praise  is  the  earnest-, 
ness  with  which  the  Christians  of  that  age  sought  to  make 

art  subservient  to  the  greater  honour  of  God All 

the  pomp  of  a  heavenly  triumph  is  displayed  in  the  com- 
position of  a  mosaic  in  the  Church  of  St.  Paul  "extra 
muros."  It  adorns  that  portion  of  the  interior  which  was 
known  to  Christians  as  the  "Triumphal  Arch."  This -was 
situated,   in  this   instance,  as  in  most  of  the  Basilicas  and 

*  Peinture,  Decadence,  torn.  ii.p.  30.     For  fuller  details,  and  ancient 
authorities,    see  Ciampini   V.    M.   t.   i.  p.    199. 


FIFTH  AND  SIXTH  CENTURIES.  35 

more  important  churches,  above  the  principal  altar,  and 
formed  a  majestic  termination  to  the  great  nave,  and  was 
immediately  followed  by  the  Arch  of  the  Tribune.""  These 
two  arches,  enriched  on  both  sides,  both  the  one  and  the 
other,  with  mosaics,  were  generally  full  in  view  of  the 
faithful  as  they  entered.  The  Saviour  appeared  on  the 
Triumphal  Arch  of  this  Church  in  all  His  glory,  seated 
upon  His  throne,  and  receiving  the  homage  and  adoration 
of  the  inhabitants  of  heaven.  Solio  niedms  consedit  avito. 
It  was  after  such  a  manner  that  emperors  of  Rome,  after 
victories  won,  found  the  representation  of  them  reproduced 
on  the  triumphal  arches  erected  in  their  honour  by  the 
gratitude  of  their  people.' 

We  would  ask  our  readers  to  bear  these  particulars 
in  mind,  while  noticing  the  list  that  follows.  It  com- 
prises all  the  mosaics  of  importance  to  our  present 
subject,  dating  from  the  years  400  to  600  a.d.,  in  the 
collections  of  Ciampinus  and  Seroux  D'Agincourt,  and  in 
another,  consisting  of  original  drawings  (once  the  property 
of  a  Pope),  to  which  we  have  access. 

The  earliest  in  point  of  date  are  the  original  t  mosaics 
in  the  Church  of  St.  Maria  Major,  dating  from  the  year 
433  A.D.,  or  shortly  after.  Those  of  which  we  now  speak 
are  on  the  upper  walls  of  what  we  should  call  the  chancel 


*  By  the  Arch  of  the  Tribune  is  once  meet  the   eye  of  worshippers 

meant  the  apse-Uke  termination  of  on  entering  the  church,  as  D'Agin- 

the  Roman  BasiUcas,  at  what  would  court  observes, 

correspond  to  the  '  East  end '  of  one  f  They  are  now  intermixed  with 

of  our  own  churches.     Accordingly,  many,  of  much  later  date,  in  other 

this  arch,  and  the  'Triumphal  Arch'  parts  of  the  church. 
abo\'e  described,  are  wliat  would  at 


36  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

arch,  the  '  Arcus  Triumphalis '  just  described.  We  find 
here  a  series  of  Scriptural  subjects '"  bearing  upon  the  truth 
of  the  Incarnation  and  of  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord, 
which  cuhninate  (over  the  centre  of  the  arch)  in  a 
symboHcal  designation  of  our  Lord,  as  the  Lamb,  derived 
from  Revelation,  cap.  iv.,  v.  There  is  here  no  suggestion 
whatever  of  the  Virgin  Mary  being  an  object  of  adoration, 
still  less  of  her  sharing  the  heavenly  throne  of  Christ.  Not 
only  so,  but,  in  the  picture  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
what  may  be  called  the  natural  arrangement  of  the  picture 
is  sacrificed,  for  the  sake  of  more  clearly  expressing  divine 
truth.  The  Holy  Child,  with  angels  in  attendance  on 
Him,  is  seated  alone  upon  a  throne  of  state;  His  own 
higher  dignity,  and  that  of  the  angels,  being  marked  also 
by  a  nimbus  upon  their  heads.  The  Virgin  Mary  has  a 
subordinate,  though  honourable,  place  at  one  side  of  the 
principal  group  ;  and  neither  here,  nor  in  any  other  of  the 
scenes  represented.  Is  the  nimbus,  or  any  such  mark, 
assigned  to  her.  We  have  engraved  this  particular  group, 
and  we  invite  especial  attention  to  It,  as  of  the  highest 
value  to  the  historian  of  primitive  doctrine.  For  the  mosaic 
was  given  to  the  Church  by  XYSTVS  EPISCOPVS  t  (so 

*  Very    imperfectly    represented  illustration   is  taken.     The  Annun- 

by  Ciampini  V.  M.  i.  p.  200.     One  ciations  made  both  to  Zacharias  and 

of  the  groups  (the  Annunciation)  is  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Adoration 

well  figured  by  D'Agincourt,  '  Pein-  of  the  Magi,  the  Presentation  in  the 

ture,'  PL  xvi.  No.  4.     But  this  group,  Temple,  the  Murder  of  the  Innocents, 

and  others  of  the  same  composition,  the  Questioning  with  the   Doctors, 

are  very  exactly  represented  in  the  and  the  Death  of  John  the  Baptist; 

private  collection  above  spoken  of  such  are  the  subjects  represented, 
once  the  property  of  Pope  Clement          t  Sixtus  III.  Bishop  of  Rome  from 

XI.      It  is  from  this   that  our  own  432  to  440  a.d. 


FIFTH  CENTURY. 


37 


38  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

named  in  the  mosaic  itself)  ivilhiu  two  or  three  years  of  the 
acts  of  the  Coimcil  of  Ephesus  being  promulgated.  In  that 
Council  the  title  of  '  Theotokos'"'  was  vindicated  for  the 
Virgin  Mary,  as  a  protest  against  the  heresy  of  Nestorius. 
The  entire  composition  of  the  mosaic  had  direct  reference 
to  the  doctrinal  questions  which  then  agitated  the  Church. 
And  the  group  now  before  our  readers,  more  forcibly  than 
any  other  evidence  that  could  be  produced,  proves  what 
was  the  mind  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century,  concerning  the  honour  due  to  our  Lord, 
and  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  respectively.  It  is  evident  that, 
as  in  the  Acts  t  of  that  Council,  so  In  this  picture,  as  it  was 
originally  arranged  (how  it  was  afterzvards  treated  we  shall 
yet  have  occasion  to  say),  the  object  proposed  was  that  of 
vindicating  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  of  Mary  against  those 
who  by  implication  denied  it,  and  was  not,  what  later 
perversions  have  made  it  to  be,  that  of  exalting  the  Virgin 


*  Theotokos,   /.  e.    one  of  whom  according   to   the   words   which    S. 

\  God  was  born.   See  following  note.  Cyril  either  puts  into  their  mouth, 

t  The  opinion  that  was  to  be  con-  or  actually  quotes,  that  He  who  was 
demned  is  most  simply  expressed  by  born  of  Mary  was  not  Himself  God, 
Cyril  Alex,  himself  (Nestorius'  prin-  but  that  God  the  Son  took  up  His 
cipal  opponent).  He  represents  the  dwelling  in  the  man  that  of  Mary 
Nestorians  as  using  the  following  had  been  horn.  In  direct  contradic- 
language  :  — '  He  who  by  the  nature  tion  to  this  heretical  statement,  the 
of  His  own  Being,  and  in  very  truth,  title  Theotokos  served  to  assert,  that 
was  the  Son,  and  as  such  was  free,  He  to  whom  Mary  gave  birth  was 
He,  the  Word  of  God  the  Father.  God^  not  a  mere  man  in  whom  the 
who  was  subsisting  in  the  form  of  Godhead  might  afterwards  abide. 
Him  who  begat  Him,  and  was  equal  [For  the  words  above  quoted  see 
unto  Him,  took  up  His  diucUing  in  a  Labbe',  Concil.  tom.  iii.  p.  32.  They 
man  born  of  a  woman.'  In  other  occur  in  the  Letter  of  Cyril,  ad- 
words,    the   Nestorians    maintained,  dressed  to  the  Egyptian  Monks,  §  14.] 


FIFTH  AND  SIXTH  CENTURIES.  39 

Mary  herself  to  all  but  coequal  dignity  with  her  Divine  Son. 
And  accordingly,  in  the  original  mosaic,  here  depicted,  not 
the  *  glories  of  Mary,'  but  the  glory  of  our  Lord,  is  evidently 
the  central  aim  of  the  whole.  Notice,  as  bearing  upon  this, 
the  arrangement  of  the  group  before  us.  In  every  other  re- 
presentation of  this  particular  subject,  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted, the  Holy  Child  is,  as  naturally  might  be  expected, 
held  in  the  arms  of  His  mother.  To  the  simple  faith  of  an 
earlier  age,  merely  human  pictures  such  as  those  already 
delineated,'"  sufficed  to  recall  at  once  all  that  to  the  faith  of 
a  Christian  was  implied  in  the  thought  of  the  star  of  Beth- 
lehem, and  of  that  Holy  Family  to  which  it  points.  But  in 
the  fifth  century,  at  the  period  of  which  we  now  speak,  more 
than  this  was  thought  to  be  required,  as  a  protest  against 
heretical  teaching.  What  was  desired  now  was,  that  art 
itself  should  minister  to  the  assertion  of  the  Divinity  of 
Him  who  was  born  of  Mary.  And  accordingly  the  Holy 
Child  is  now  seated  alone  (apart  from  His  mother)  upon  a 
throne,  angels  being  in  attendance  upon  Him,  as  though 
waiting  to  do  His  bidding.  The  Virgin  Mary  shares  not 
this   His  throne,  but    is  in  a  subordinate  position  t  at  one 


*  See  pp.  12  and  14.  description  by  Ciampinus,  and  the 
t  The  accurate  drawings  here  re-  drawing  which  we  now  pubHsh  for 
produced  enable  us  to  correct  a  the  first  time,  will  enable  antiquaries 
mistake  shared  by  Ciampinus  and  to  arrive  at  a  true  conclusion  con- 
Mr.  Heraans.  They  speak  of  the  cerning  the  whole.  More  jiarticu- 
Virgin  Mary  as  standing.  This  is  larly  we  would  call  attention  to  the 
not  so.  She  is  seated,  but  on  a  fact  mentioned  by  Ciampinus,  that 
chair  of  some  kind,  as  far  as  one  there  was  originally  yet  another  figure 
can  judge,  and  in  a  subordinate  po-  on  the  extreme  left  of  the  picture 
sition,  while  the  Holy  Child  is  seated  (probably  the  third  of  the  Magi), 
on  a  spacious  throne.     The  detailed  which  had  all  but  disappeared,  even 


40  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  Vn<GIN  MARY. 

side ;  Joseph  (probably)  on  llic  otlier.  And  while  the 
angels,  and  our  Lord,  have  the  nimbus  about  the  head,  the 
Virgin  herself  is  without  it.  What  makes  this  absence 
of  the  nimbus  from  the  head  of  the  Virgin  the  more  signi- 
licant,  is  the  fact,  that,  in  other  portions  of  the  mosaic  here 
described,  Herod,  as  being  a  King,  has  the  nimbus.  This 
attribute  had  been  a  designation  of  royalty,  and  of  divinity 
(under  the  Empire  the  two  ideas  were  not  very  accurately 
distinguished)  before  it  was  adopted  into  Christian  use, 
and  in  the  earliest  Christian  monuments  this  meaning  was 
still  preserved.  And  from  this  monument  that  appears 
clear,  which  from  the  evidence  of  contemporary  literature  we 
might  also  infer,  viz.  that  to  the  Virgin  Mary  neither 
queenly  nor  divine  honours  were  assigned,  even  as  late  as 
the  fifth  century  of  Christendom.  And  the  later  evidence, 
which  follows,  shows  that  even  this  period  must  be  consi- 
derably extended,  before  we  shall  find  traces,  in  Roman 
churches,  of  either  of  those  two  ideas. 

A  few  years  later  in  date  than  the  mosaics  last  de- 
scribed, are  those  in  the  Church  of  SS.  Nazarius  and 
Celsus"  at  Ravenna,  originally  constructed  as  a  mausoleum.. 
There  are  here  repeated  representations,  symbolical  or 
personal,  of  our  Lord  ;  none  zvhatever  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

All  but,  if  not  quite,  contemporary  with  the  last,  are  the 

in  his  time,  in  consequence  of  alter-  been,  that  he  interpreted  this  figure 

ations  in  the  building.    I  should  add  as  representing  the  third  of  the  Magi, 

that  the  seated  figure  {spectator's  right  and   the  standing   figure   (which   is 

of  the  throne),  which    is   evidently  really  that  of  a  man)  on  our  Lord's 

that  intended  for  the  Virgin  Mary,  right  hand  he   assumes    to   be   in- 

so    little    corresponded    with    what  tended  for  the  Virgin  Mother. 
Ciampinus,  as  a  Roman    Catholic,  *  See  Ciampini  V.  M.  tom.  i.   c. 

would    naturally  expect   it   to    have  xxiii. 


FIFTH  AND  SIXTH  CENTURIES. 


41 


mosaics,  again  on  the  '  Arcus  Triumphalis,'  of  the  Church  of 
St.  Paul  on  the  Via  Ostiensis,""'^  presented  by  Leo  the  Great 
(a.u.  441).  Here,  again,  it  is  the  'Triumph'  of  the  as- 
cended Saviour  that  is  represented,  according  to  the  de- 
scription given  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  (cap.  iv.,  v.). 
The  four  living  creatures, t  the  four-and-twenty  Elders, 
holding  crowns  {i.e.  victors'  garlands)  in  their  hands,  SS. 
Peter  and  Paul — all  these  are  represented,  but  in  no  way 
whatever  does  the  Virgin  Mary  appear. 

The  same  remarks  will  apply,  mutatis  mutandis,  to  other 
mosaics|at  Ravenna,  of  the  years  451  and  462  respectively. 
There  is  much  here  to  recall  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  to 
the  minds  of  the  faithful.  The  Virgin  Alary  is  nowhere 
represented. 

Not  even  in  the  sixth  century,  a  period  of  rapidly  in- 
creasing barbarism  in  Italy,  is  any  change  yet  to  be  found  in 
the  prevailing  character  of  these  more  public  §  monuments 
of  the  Church.  To  this  period  belong  numerous  mosaics, 
both  in  Ravenna  and  at  Rome.     Among  the  former  we  may 

*  See  Ciampini  V.  M.  t.  i.  c.  xxiv.  their  execution,  whatever  that  was, 

A  good  representation  of  these  will  there  was  among  private  persons  at 

be  found  in  D'Agincourt,  '  Peinture,'  Rome  a  considerable  development 

PL  xvi.  No.  6.  in  the  '  cultus '  both  of  the  Virgin 

f  Identified   in   the  mosaic  with  Mary,  and  of  martyrs  such  as  St. 

the    symbolic    designations    of  the  Agnes.     There  is   nothing  more  of 

four  Evangelists.  honour  traceable  in  the  representa- 

X  See  Ciampini  V.  M.  torn.  i.  cc.  tions   of  the  Virgin   Mary  than   in 

xxv.  and  xxvi.,  and   Plates  Ixx.  to  those  of  St.  Agnes  and  St.  Lawrence. 

Ixxv.  But  both  one  and  the  other,  in  these 

§  The  later  Vetri  Antichi,  on  the  more  individual  expressions  of  de- 
other  hand,  whether  they  be  as-  votional  feeling,  present  a  marked 
signed  to  the  fourth,  fifth,  or  sixth  contrast  to  the  public  monuments 
century,  indicate  that  at  the  time  of  we  have  to  describe. 


42  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

enumerate  those'"' of  the  Church  of  St.  VitaHs  {circ.  550  a.d.), 
of  St.  Maria t  in  Cosmedin  (a.d.  553),  of  St.  ApohinarisJ; 
(a.d.  570).  At  Rome  itself  we  have  mosaics  of  about  the 
same  date,  in  the  Church  of  SS.  Cosmas  and  Damianus§ 
(a.d.  530),  and  in  that  of  St.  Laurentius||  (a.d.  578).  Among 
a  mukitude  of  Scriptural  subjects,  or  Scriptural  personages, 
there  represented  (none  others  occur,  in  these  more  public 
monuments,  till  late  in  the  sixth  century),  there  is  but  onell 
instance,  to  our  knowledge,  of  the  Virgin  Mary  being 
figured  at  all,  and  then  only  in  the  scene  of  the  Adoration 
of  the  Magi.  And  it  is  very  noteworthy,  that  in  every 
instance*"'  of  mosaic  decorations,  of  this  or  of  earlier  cen- 
turies, placed  on  the  '  Arcus  Triumphalis,'  or  on  the  '  Arch 
of  the  Tribune,'  it  is  our  blessed  Lord,  in  every  case,  who, 
either  by  symbolic tt  designation  or  by  direct  representation, 
is  set  forth  as  at  once  God  and  Man,  and,  as  such,  as  the 
object  of  religious  worship  to  the  faithful ;  and,  with  the  one 
exception  of  the  historical  [scriptural]  representations  of  the 


*  Ciampini  V.  M.   torn.  ii.  c.  ix.  linus,  Bishop  of  Nola  {flor.  circ.  420 

Pll.  xix.  XX.  xxi.  A.D.)  and  St.  Nilus  of  Egypt  {flor. 

t  Ibid.  c.  X.  Pll.  xxiii.  xxiv.  circ.  440)  will  answer  as  well  as  any 

X  Ibid.  c.  xii.  Pll.  xxv.  xxvi.  could  for  the  feeling  of  the  Church 

§  Ibid.  c.  vii.  Pll.  xv.  xvi.  xvii.  in  these   matters   of  sacred  art,   in 

II  Ibid.  PI.  xxvii.  i.  West  and   East,   early  in   the   fifth 

^  S.  Apollinaris,  at  Ravenna.    Ci-  century.    Students  of  early  art  should 

ampini,  t.  ii.    PI.  xxvii.     The    '  one  compare  the  Epist.  xii.  (ad  Severum) 

only '  of  which  we  speak,  is  exclu-  and  Poema  xxvii.  of  Paulinus,  with 

sive  of  those  mosaics  of  Sixtus  III.  the  letter  of  St.  Nilus  to  the  Prefect 

A.D.  c.  435)  already  described.  Olympiodorus.    (Lib.  iv.  Epist.  Ixiii. 

**  See  Ciampini,   t.  i.  Tab.  xlvi.  Romce,  fol.  1668.)     Both  letters  are 

Ixviii. ;  t.  ii.  Tab.  xv.  xvi.   xvii.  xix.  of  great  interest,  as  on  other  grounds, 

xxiv.  xxviii.  so  more  particularly  for  their  bearing 

tt  '  Symbolic  designation.'     Pau-  on  the  history  of  Christian  art ;  and 


MONUMENTS  OF  SEVENTH  CENTURY.  43 

St.  Maggiore  already  described,  in  no  one  of  these  instances 
is  the  Virgin  Mary  in  any  way  represented. 

And  thus  we  are  brought  to  the  close  of  the  sixth 
century,  a  period  at  which,  in  art,  as  in  literature,  we  find 
proofs  of  rapid  deterioration  from  the  higher  standard  of 
earlier  times,  but  in  which  the  public  monuments  of  the 
Church  were  as  yet  primitive  and  Scriptural  in  character,  and 
without  any  the  slightest  trace  of  idolatrous  worship  offered 
to  any  creature,  in  derogation  of  that  due  to  the  three 
persons  of  the  blessed  Trinity, 

We  shall  find  manifest  traces  of  a  change  in  the 
character  of  these  monuments  in  the  century  that  follows. 
But  before  proceeding  to  speak  of  these,  we  may  briefly 
notice  one,  which  in  character,  as  well  as  in  date,  belongs  to 
the  transitional  period  which  we  have  now  reached,  though 
not  locally  connected  with  the  other  monuments  above 
described. 

The  picture  which  our  readers  have  before  them  is  from 
a  Syriac  Book  of  the  Gospels,  written  and  illuminated  at 
Zagba,  in  Mesopotamia,  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century 
(a,d,  586),  and  purchased  nine  centuries  later  by  an  agent 
of  the  Medici  for  their  library  at  Florence.     Of  this  library 


we  regret  that  space  will  not  allow  sented,  and  that  not  personally  (in 

of  our  quoting  them.     But  we  may  His  form  as  man),  but  symbolically, 

state  one  conclusion  to  which  they  by  the   figure   of  a  lamb,  or   by  a 

point,  viz.  that  while  the  nave  of  a  cross.     [This  last  is  the  only  deco- 

church  was   decorated   with  stories  ration  St.  Nilus  will  have  in  the  Hie- 

from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  rateion,    the  Sacrarium  of  Western 

(for  the  instruction,  says  St.  Nilus,  writers.]     This   cross,  as  described 

of  those  ivJio  cannot  read  Scripture),  by  Paulinus,  was  surrounded  by  a 

yet  in  the  chancel   (as  we    should  corona,  or  victor's  chaplet,  just  as  we 

now  call  it)  Christ  alone  was  repre-  see  it  in  numerous  early  sarcophagi. 


44  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VH'ICIN  MARY. 

it  Still  forms  one  of  the  most  cherished  treasures.  The 
middle  and  upper  part  of  the  picture  before  us,  with  which 
alone'''  we  are  here  concerned,  contains  a  representation  of 
the  Ascension.  And  it  will  be  seen,  that  here,  as  in  almost 
all  the  later  mediaeval  representations  of  the  same  scene, 
whether  in  East  or  West,  the  Virgin  Mary  is  made  the 
central  personage  in  the  picture,  although  in  Holy  Scripture 
we  have  not  the  slightest  intimation  of  her  having  been 
present.  And  after  what  has  been  already  said  on  the 
subject  of  the  nimbus,  our  readers  will  see  what  is  implied 
by  a  fact,  trivial  indeed  in  itself,  but  suggestive  of  the 
tendencies  of  the  time  from  which  this  picture  dates.  We 
find  that,  in  this  picture,  our  Lord,  the  Angels,  and  the 
Virgin  Maiy,  have  the  nimbus,  while  the  Apostles  are 
without  it.  In  all  other  respects,  the  older  traditions  of 
Christian  art  are  still  observed.  The  Virgin  is  in  an 
attitude  of  adoration,  standing  as  in  prayer,  not  seated  on 
a  throne  of  glory,  and  herself  (as  in  later  pictures  we  shall 
see  her)  the  object  of  adoration  to  others.  Though  she 
occupies  the  central  place,  with  the  Eleven  on  either  side 
of  her,  and  is  marked  out  as  distinguished  above  them  by 
the  nimbus  about  her  head,  yet  do  we  find  as  yet  no  traces 
of  those  apocryphal  stories  concerning  her,  which  had 
already  come  into  existence,  and  which,  in  some  parts  of 


*  In  the  lower  compartments  of  andria  (engraved  in  'Vest.  Christ.' 

the   picture   are   reproduced,    on   a  PL  xxvii.).     For  further  particulars 

much  smaller  scale,  two  other  illus-  concerning  this  INIS.  see  '  Assemani 

trations  from  the  same  ancient  source.  Bibliotheca  Medicea,'  Florentise,  fol. 

One   is   of  the   Crucifixion,   in  the  1742,    where   the    illustrations    are 

other  are  figured  Eusebius,    Bishop  engraved  and  described, 
of  Ccesarea.  and  Ammonius  of  Alex- 


:  :   --  •  /.  s  c  E  N  s  I  c  \ 

-rem  a   S\;'.5.c    M  S    writ.ten   A  2    :;6£ 


i 


MONUMENTS  OF  SEVENTH  CENTURY.  45 

the  West,  about  this  time,  found  expression  in  Christian  art. 
Still  less  do  we  find  anything  approaching  to  those  blasphe- 
mous representations  of  which  Western  art  has  been  prolific 


m  later  aofes. 


From  600  A.D.  to  800  a.d. 

In  proceeding  now  to  speak  of  the  monuments  of  the 
two  centuries  immediately  following,  we  will  quote,  as  being 
exceedingly  apposite  to  our  purpose,  the  words  of  a  foreign 
writer,  to  whose  authority  we  have  already  made  appeal. 
Seroux  d'Agincourt,  describing""  the  gradual  degradation 
of  art  in  the  successive  centuries  of  our  Christian  era,  writes 
as  follows  of  the  seventh :  —  'In  the  seventh  century  .  .  .  . 
the  custom  was  introduced  of  representing  in  churches 
persons  who  were  the  objects  of  a  special  "  cultus "  \d'un 
ctUte  particidier,  of  a  special  worship  or  reverence  other 
than  that  paid  to  God  Himself].'  He  then  refcis  to 
particular  mosaics  in  which  occur  figures  of  St.  Agnes, 
St.  Sebastian,  and  St.  Euphemia.  And  then  describing 
another,  in  which  was  a  figure  of  our  Lord,  he  writes  : 
*  Christ  is  here  seen  as  if  in  act  of  blessing,  but  the  figure, 
which  is  but  a  half-length,  is  without  dignity,  and  is  lost  as 
it  ivere  in  the  crowd  of  images  produced  by  emblematic 
representations  of  the  Evangelists  a7td  of  saintly  personages 
who  fill  the  principal  space!  What  a  comment  is  here 
unconsciously  given  upon  the  tendencies  of  the  age  of 
which  the  writer  speaks  ! 

Numerous  mosaics  dating  from  this  seventh  century  are 
figured  by  Ciampinus  and  others.     The  earliest  in  date  is 

*  F^or  these  quotations  see  vol.  ii.  p.  37,  of  the  '  Histoire  de  I'Art,'  &c. 


46  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

of  the  year  623  a.d.,  in  the  church  of  St.  Agnes,  restored 
and  decorated  by  the  Roman  Popes  Symmachiis  and 
Honorius  I.  Here,  for  the  first  time,  the  arch  of  the 
tribune  is  found  to  be  occupied,  not  by  our  Lord,  but  by 
saints  (St.  Agnes,  and  the  two  bishops  to  whom  was  due 
the  restoration  of  the  Church).  And  tJiese  figiwes  take  the 
place,  ivhich  in  earlier  times  wonld  have  been  occtipied  by  the 
Saviour,  zvith  angels  and  apostles  on  either  hand.  The 
barbarism  of  the  inscription  forms  an  instructive  comment 
upon  the  picture  itself  Some  twenty  years  before  this, 
St.  Gregory  the  Great  had  told  us,  that  he  himself  knew 
nothing  of  Greek,  and  that  at  Constantinople  there  was  no 
one  who  could  make  sense  out  of  a  Latin  letter  requiring 
translation  into  Greek.  And  by  the  inscription  now  before 
us  we  may  judge  what  was  now  that  ' pnrity  of  Latin 
speech'  boasted  "  of,  as  this  at  least  had  been,  at  Rome  in 
St.   Gregory's  time.t 

*  Joannes  Diaconus  'Vita  D.  Gre-  Martyrum  e  bustis  hinc  reppulit  ille 
gorii,'  lib.  ii.  c.  13.  chaos. 

t  We  give  the  description  exactly  Sursum  versa  nutu  quod  cunctis  cer- 
as  we  find  it  in  Ciampinus,  V.  M.  nitur  usque, 

t,  ii.  p.  105  : — ■  Prffisul    Honorius   hsec  vota  dicata 
'  Aurea  concisis  surgit  Pictura  me-  dedit. 

tallis,  Vestibus  et  factis  signantur  illius  ora 

Et  complexa  simul  clauditur  ipsa  dies.  Excitat  aspectu  lucida  corda  gerens.' 
Fontibus  e  nibeis  [/.  e.  niveis]  crcdas  The  Pontifical  inscriptions  of  the 

aurora  subire  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  are  some  of 

Correptas  nubes  ruribus  aura  rigans.  them  bad  enough,  in  all  conscience. 

Vel  qualem  inter  sidera  lucem  pro-  But  what  can  be  said,  what  thought, 

ferat  Irim  of  Latin  such  as  this,  at  the  very 

Purpureusque  pavo  ipse   colore   ni-  centre,  and  in  the  Patriarchal  See, 

tens.  of  Latin  Christendom  ?    Archbishop 

Qui  posuit  [potuit  ?]  noctis  vel  lucis  Manning  will  no  doubt  tell  us  that 

reddere  finem  it  was  not  written  ' civ  cathedra' 


MONUMENTS  OF  SEVENTH  CENTURY.  47 

With  such  evidence  before  us  of  the  barbarism  of  the 
Roman  Church  at  this  time,  we  shall  not  be  surprised 
at  finding-,  even  in  the  public  monuments  of  this  century, 
proof  of  a  marked  change  in  the  feeling  of  the  Church  in 
reference  to  doctrinal  questions,  and  of  declension  from  the 
purity  of  primitive  faith.  In  the  Chapel  of  St.  Venantius,'"' 
the  mosaic  decorations  of  which  date  from  642  a.d.  or 
thereabouts,  the  one  figure  which  is  so  placed  as  at  once  to 
catch  the  eye  of  worshippers  thoughout  the  Church,  is  that 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  She  appears  here  as  the  central 
figure,  with  six  Apostles  on  either  side  of  her.  Both  she 
and  the  Apostles  have  a  nimbus  exactly  resembling  that 
assio-ned  to  our  Lord  and  the  two  anofels  who  attend  on 
Him.  It  is,  however,  with  a  view,  probably,  to  mark  the 
greater  dignity  of  these  celestial  personages,  that  they  have 
been  drawn  on  a  much  larger  scale  than  the  Virgin  Mary 
and  the  Apostles,  who  occupy  the  lower,  and  more  generally 
visible,  part  of  the  composition. 

Once  more  we  quote  D'Agincourt.  It  is  thus  that  he 
describes  the  characteristics  of  Christian  art  in  the  period 
that  immediately  followed.  '  In  the  eighth  century,'  so 
he  writes  ('  Peinture,'  vol.  ii.  p.  38),  '  the  carelessness  and 
ignorance  of  the  times  often  mixed  up  in  the  same  com- 
position subjects  utterly  alien  the  one  from  the  other  .... 
At  this  period  the  fervour  of  Christian  people  for  the  wor- 
ship ["  culte ")  of  the  Mother  of  God  was  continually  in- 
creasing. T/ie  homage  paid  to  her  zuas  no  longer  distin- 
guished from  that  rendered  to  the  Lord  of  all!  So  writes 
the  Roman  Catholic  historian  of  Christian  art.     But  we  are 

*  See  Ciampini  V.  M.  torn.  ii.  c.  xv.  Tab.  xxxi. 


48  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

bound  to  say  that  we  do  not  ourselves  know  of  any  monu- 
ments'"  of  the  cio-Jith  century,  which  bear  out  this  very 
strong  language,  which,  however,  is  strictly  applicable,  as 
we  shall  see,  to  the  centuries  that  follow. 

The  Ninth  and  three  follozuing  Centuries . 

The  period  at  which  we  have  now  arrived  is  one  which 
well  deserves  attentive  study,  as  on  other  grounds,  so  es- 
pecially upon  this,  that  in  the  four  centuries  which  elapsed 
between  the  age  of  Leo  III.  and  Charlemagne  (a.d.  800), 
and  that  of  Pope  Innocent  III.  {sed.  1198-1216),  the  doc- 
trine and  ritual  of  the  Roman  Church  were  gradually 
elaborated  and  stereotyped  by  a  series  of  councils,  to  whose 
decrees  the  divines  assembled  at  Trent  in  the  sixteenth 
century  appealed  t  as  being  nothing  less  than  the  teaching 
of  '  the  Church  of  God.' 

The  first  of  the  monuments  we  have  now  to  notice 
dates  from  an  early  period  of  the  ninth  century.  It  is  a 
mosaic  I  in  the  Church  of  St.  Cecilia,  restored  and  decor- 
ated by  Pope  Paschalis  the  First  (817-824).  Here  we  find 
a  marked  evidence  of  the  advance    made  (if  advance  w^ 

*  A  point   of  transition  towards  the   beginning    of  the    eighth   cen- 

the    more    pronounced   representa-  tury. 

tions  of  the  ninth  century  will  be  t  Catechismus  ad  Parochos,  pp. 

found  figured  in  Ciampini  '  De  Sacris  139,  140,     Romae,  fol.  1566. 

^dificiis,'  Tab.  xxiii.     Pope   John  %  Figured  and  described  in  Ciam- 

VII.  is  there  represented  approach-  pini  V.  M.   t.  ii.  c.  xxiii.  Tab.  xliv. 

ing  the  Virgin  Mary,  '  venerabiliter  By   Seroux   D'Agincourt,    PI.    xvii. 

curvus.'     The  Virgin  herself  has  the  No.  15,  and  also  in  the  Collection 

nimbus,  and  has  a  royal  diadem;  but  of  original  Drawings  once  belonging 

she  is  still  standing,  and  in  the  atti-  to  Pope  Clement  XL,  already  spoken 

tude   of  prayer.     These  date  from  of 


NINTH  AND  FOLLOWING  CENTURIES.  49 

can  bear  to  call  it)  in  the  publicly  recognised  worship  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  The  arch  of  the  tribune  is  occupied  by  a 
gigantic  figure  of  the  Virgin,  seated  on  a  gorgeous  throne. 
She  holds  the  Infant  Saviour  in  her  arms.  But  the  Pope 
[Paschalis  himself,  as  the  'square  nimbtis'  about  his  head 
indicates],  who  kneels  before  the  two,  directs  his  worship, 
not  to  the  Infant  Saviotir,  but  to  the  Virgin  Mary.  He  is 
embracing  her  feet,  as  he  kneels  in  an  attitude  of  adoration. 
The  Pontifical  Latin  is  here  again  significant —  Virgo 
Maria  tibi  Paschalis  PrcesiU  honestus  condidit  hanc  aulam 
Icetus  per  scccla  manendam.  Another  church,  that  of  St. 
Cecilia,  also  owed  its  mosaic  decoration  to  the  same  Pope 
Paschal  {circ.  820  a.d.).""  And  here  we  may  note  some 
significant  changes  made  in  the  traditionary  representations 
of  the  worship  of  Christ  on  the  Arcus  Triumphalis.  The 
four-and-twenty  elders,  with  their  white  robes,  and  crowns  in 
their  hands,  are  still  in  their  wonted  place.  But  above,  and 
in  the  very  centre  of  the  whole,  instead  of  a  figure  of  our 
Lord  alone,  personally  or  symbolically  represented,  the 
Virgin  Mary,  wearing  a  royal  crozun,  is  seated  as  a  Qtteeny 
upon  a  throne,  bearing  the  Holy  Infant  on  her  knees. 

With  this  may  be  compared  two  other  mosaics  of  nearly 
the  same  date  ;  one  in  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Capua  ;t  one 
in  the  Church  of  St.  Maria  Nova  at  Rome,  in  which  \  the 
Virgin  Mary,  with  all  the  insignia  of  a  Queen,  is  set  forth  as 
the  most  conspicuous  object  for  the  worship  of  the  faithful. 

*  Ciampini  V.  M.  torn.  ii.  c.  xxvii.  %  Ibid.  Tab.  Ivii.  (Photographed, 

Tab.  xi. ;  D'Agincourt,  '  Peinture,'  from  a  drawing  of  Pope  Clement's,  in 
PI.  xvii.  No.  14;  and  a  drawing  in  'VestiariumChristianmn,'Pl.xxxviii.) 
the  collection  of  Pope  Clement  XI.       Compare    D'Agincourt,    '  Peinture,' 

t  Ciampini  ubi  sup.  Tab.  liv.  PI.  xvii.  No.   13. 

E 


50  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

But  we  pass  hastily  over  these,  in  order  to  dwell  in 
more  detail  upon  a  picture,  somewhat  differing  from  these 
in  character,  which  was  only  discovered  a  few  years  ago, 
and  which  since  then  has  often  been  the  subject  of  keen 
controversy. 

There  is  a  special  interest  attaching  to  this  picture, 
because,  like  so  many  other  monuments  of  both  the  art  and 
the  literature  of  antiquity,  it  has  been  grossly  misrepre- 
sented, and  is  even  now  employed,  we  believe,  to  serve  the 
purposes  of  Roman  controversy. 

This  picture  of '  the  Assumption '  (for  such  it  probably 
is)  was  discovered  only  a  few  years  ago,  on  the  buried  walls 
of  perhaps  the  oldest  church  in  Rome,  that  of  St.  Clement. 
A  church  so  named  has  long  been  shown,  as  many  of  our 
readers  doubtless  know,  and  has  been  reputed  among  the 
most  ancient  buildings  of  Christian  Rome.  But  in  the 
course  of  some  repairs  that  were  found  necessary  in  the 
year  1858,  a  crypt  was  discovered  below  the  floor  of  the 
church,  this  crypt  being  no  other  than  the  primitive  Church 
of  St.  Clement,  half  burled  and  half  destroyed.  On  the 
ruins  of  this,  a  comparatively  modern  church  had  been 
constructed,  in  (we  believe)  the  twelfth  century.  On  th^ 
walls  of  this  buried  church,  frescoes  were  found,  one  of 
which  is  now  presented  to  our  readers.  The  subject  is  the 
'  Assumption,'  as  we  have  already  observed  ;  and  though 
Roman  antiquaries,  such  as  De  Rossi,  have  at  once 
recognised  the  true  date  of  the  fresco,  which  is  actually  in- 
scribed upon  it,  as  we  shall  see,  yet  proselytising  ecclesi- 
astics at  Rome  long  remained  in  ignorance  (so  we  are 
bound  in  charity  to  suppose)  of  this  date,  and  displayed  this 
fresco  again  and  again  to  English  visitors  as  giving  proof 


THE. ASSUMPTION 
A  Fresco  of  the  T*  JeA'oir/  from  the  liypogene  Church  of  S  Qemenleat  Romfe 


THE  ASSUMPTION. 


51 


that  the  Roman  doctrine  concerning  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
especially  concerning  her  Assumption,  had  been  recognised 
in  the  primitive  Church  from  all  but  Apostolic  times. 
'  The  Church  of  St.  Clement,  even  as  known  hitherto,'  (so 
it  was '"  argued,)  '  was  one  of  the  oldest  Christian  Churches 
at  Rome.  Here  is  a  church  more  ancient  still, — so  ancient 
as  to  have  been  buried  beneath  the  ground,  and  altogether 
lost  to  sight  and  knowledge  for  hundreds  of  years.  The 
very  construction  of  the  walls  gives  proof  of  an  all  but 
Apostolic  antiquity ;  and  here,  upon  those  walls,  pro- 
videntially preserved  for  the  conviction  of  Protestants,  and 
for  the  establishment  of  the  faith  of  Catholics, — here  are 
proofs  of  what  was  the  belief  of  the  Church  while,  it  may 
be,  the  voices  of  the  two  princes  of  the  Apostles  were  still 
sounding  in  the  ears  of  their  surviving  disciples.' 

This  ingenious  statement,  like  many  another  similar 
argument  that  has  been  set  in  currency  of  late  years  among 
ourselves,  can  only  be  acquitted  of  far  graver  fault  on  the 
ground  of  a  scarcely  excusable  ignorance.  For  what  are 
the  facts  of  the  case — facts  which  at  Rome,  the  very  centre 
of  archaeological  study,  might  have  been  ascertained  at  once 
from  persons  competent  to  give  an  opinion  ?  Our  readers 
have  before  them  the  opportunity  of  judging  these  facts  for 
themselves,  and  that  upon  evidence  furnished  by  the  very 
persons  t  whose  opinions  we  are  now  combating.      And  first, 


*  It  is  right  to  add,  that  the  pre-  edition  of  this  paper  I  have  seen, 

sent  writer  is  not  a  personal  witness  by  a   description    of  these  mosaics 

as  to  this.     He  is  only  retailing  at  published  not  long  since  by  the  cus- 

second-hand  the  general  purport  of  todians  of  the  church,  that  they  do 

what  he  has  heard  stated  by  others.  now  recognise  their  true  date.] 

[I  will  add,  also,  that  since  the  first  t  Our  illustration  is  reproduced 


52  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VH^GIN   MARY. 

let  it  be  noted,  that  the  figure  on  the  left-hand  {spectators 
left)  occupies  the  place  which,  in  pictures  of  this  kind,  was 
conventionally  assigned  to  the  ^iver  of  the  mosaic,  or  of  the 
fresco,  as  the  case  might  be.  Observe,  further,  the  contrast 
between  the  '  nimbus '  about  the  head  of  this  figure  (it  is 
shaped  like  a  square  piece  of  board),  and  the  ordinary  cir- 
cular nimbus  of  the  figure  on  the  spectator's  right.  This 
'  square  nimbus,'  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  was,  in  the 
middle  ages,  a  conventional  mode  of  marking  out  a  distin-  I 
guished  personage  while  still  living^^  whereas  the  circular 
nimbus  was  reserved  as  a  mark  of  honour  after  death. 

Now  let  us  note,  before  going  further,  how  many  clear 
indications  of  date  there  are  before  us,  even  independently 
of  the  inscriptions  which  we  have  yet  to  consider.  The 
shaveit  crowns  of  '  St.  Vitus,'  and  of  the  corresponding 
figure  on  the  left,  would  have  been  regarded,  even  as  late 
as  St.  Jerome's  time  (close  of  fourth  t  century),  as  a  mark 
proper   to   the    priesthood    of  some    heathen    superstition. 


mechanically,  and  with  mechanical  on  a  head  (mosaic)  of  John  VII., 

accuracy,  from  a  photograph   pub-  dating   from   the   beginning  of  the 

lished    by    the    custodians    of  the  eighth  century.  (Ciampini  '  De  Sacr. 

church.  yEdif.'  Tab.  xxiii.) 

*  John  the  Deacon,  writing  in  the  •(•  S.  Hieron.  in  Ezek.  xliv.  (0pp. 

ninth  century,  at  the  very  time  from  t.   iii.  p.  1029.     See  'Vest.  Christ' 

which  this  picture  dates,  is  the  first  p.  30.)     'By  this  it  is  clear  that  we 

writer  who  notices  this  custom.    De-  ought   not   to   have  shaven   heads, 

scribing  a  picture  of  St.  Gregory  the  like  the  priests  and  worshippers  of 

Great  which  was  extant  in  his  time,  Isis  and  Serapis ;    nor  yet,   on  the 

he   says,  — '  Circa   verticem   tabulcz  other   hand,    to  wear  long   flowing 

similihidinem,    quod  viveiitis   iiisigtie  hair,  which  is  for  the  luxurious  only, 

est,  praeferens,  non  coronam.'     The  for  barbarians,  or  men  of  the  sword.' 

earliest  existing  monument,  known  '  "  •  And    again,    '  Heathen  super- 

to  the  writer,  in  which,  it  occurs,  is  stition  has  its  shaven  heads.' 


TIIK  ASSUMPTION. 


53 


The  earliest  known  examples  in  art  of  the  bare  crown,  by- 
way of  tonsure,  are  of  the  sixth  century.  Again,  the  use  of 
the  circular  nimbus  in  representing  a  personage  such  as 
St.  Vitus,  and  the  square  nimbus  seen  in  the  same  picture, 
point  to  the  sixth  century  as  the  very  earliest  to  which  the 
picture  could  with  any  probability  be  referred.  And  on 
all  these  grounds  any  one  even  moderately  acquainted  with 
the  data  of  Christian  archaeology  would  at  once  say,  that 
the  first  glance  of  the  picture,  independently  of  its  inscrip- 
tions and  of  its  subject,  marked  it  as  being  at  any  rate  later 
than  the  year  500  a.d. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  are  two  inscriptions  on  the 
fresco  before  us,  which,  if  this  picture  is  to  be  trusted,  fix 
the  date,  beyond  all  posssibility  of  mistake,  to  the  middle  of 
the  ninth  century.  The  first  of  the  two  inscriptions  is  thus 
worded  : 

QVOD  H/EC  PR^  CVNCTIS  SPLENDET  PICTVRA  DECORE 
COMPONERE  HANC  STVDVIT  PRESBITER  ECCE  LEO. 

It  is  not  as  a  specimen  of  mediaeval  Latinity  that  we  quote 
these  lines,  but  as  an  introduction  to  a  second  and  some- 
what later  inscription,  about  the  head  of  this  same  '  Presbiter 
Leo.'  Represented  here  as  the  giver  of  the  fresco,  at  a 
time  when  he  was  'Presbyter  Urbis'  (a  'Cardinal,'  he 
would  now  be  styled),  this  second  inscription  speaks  of  him 
by  his  later  title  as  Sanctissimtcs  Domtnus'^  Leo  Quartiis 

*  This  title  of  '  Dominus,'  as  an  pears  in  art  monuments  for  the  first 

official  designation  for  the  occupant  time  in  the  mosaics  of  the  famous 

of  the  Roman  See,  was  first  assumed,  '  TricHnium  Lateranum.'     See  '  Ves- 

we  beHeve,  by  Leo  III.,  at  the  be-  tiarium  Christianum,'  p.  hi.  and  Pll. 

ginning  of  the  ninth  century.     It  ap-  xxxii.  xxxiii. ;  and  PI.  vi.  below. 


54  THE  CULTUS  OK    TllK  VIRGIN   MAKV. 

Papa  Ronianns.  And  we  arc  thus  able  to  fix  the  date 
of  this  picture  to  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  to 
a     period    shortly    preceding    the    Pontificate   of   Leo   IV. 

(«45-855)- 

We  give  this  date  upon  the  evidence  (professedly /y^^?/^- 

graphic)  furnished  by  Roman  authorities.  But  the  photo- 
graphic picture  (reproduced  in  these  pages)  was  taken,  not 
from  the  actual  fresco,  but  from  a  drawing  intended  to  re- 
present as  exactly  as  possible  its  true  state.  And  we 
observe  that  Mr.  J.  H.  Parker  of  Oxford,  who  has  devoted 
himself  of  late  more  especially  to  Roman  archaeology,  both 
Christian  and  classical,  has  photographed  the  fresco  itself 
by  means  of  lime  light,  and  he  believes  the  inscription  to 
refer  to  Leo  IX.  (1048- 105 4).  He  gives  (in  his  printed 
description)  the  inscription  about  the  head  of  Leo  as 
follows  :  — 

DOM.   LEO  p.   M.   ROMANVS, 

and  an  inscription  below,  which,  he  says,  is  only  partly  le- 
gible, thus  : — 

PARCVS  Q.  paries)  IIS  SPLENDET  PICTA  DECORE  LEO 
PONTIFEX  HANC  STVDVIT  PRESBYTER  ECCLESIAM  FIERI. 

In  the  photograph  (published  at  Rome)  which  we  our- 
selves have  reproduced,  the  abbreviated  inscription  is 
ss.  DOM.  LEO  QRS.  PP.  ROM.  {i.  e.  Sanctissimus  Dominus  Leo 
Quartus  Papa  Romanus).  If  Mr.  Parker's  date  be  the 
correct  one,  our  own  case  is  even  strono-er  than  before.  But 
here,  as  throughout,  we  have  preferred  taking  the  Roman 
controversialists  on  their  ozvn  ground,  for  the  saving  of  un- 
necessary argument. 


-     tL 


<    il 


THE  ASSUMPTION.  55 

And  thus  we  find  that  this  picture  of  the  '  Assumption,' 
appealed  to  with  such  confidence,  by  Roman  controver- 
siaHsts,  as  an  evidence  of  all  but  Apostolic  antiquity  for  the 
doctrine  in  question,  proves  nothing  more  than  that  (at  the 
earliest)  after  a  lapse  of  800  years,  and  300  years  or  more 
after  the  utter  decay  of  primitive  learning  in  Italy,  this 
doctrine'"  had  at  length  obtained  public  recognition  upon 
the  walls  of  a  Roman  church. 

Twelfth  Ce7ittiry. 

If  anything  were  wanting  to  complete  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  Christian  Rome  that  once  was,  and  the  Marian 
Rome  of  mediaeval  and  of  modern  times,  the  want  might  be 
supplied  by  mosaics  of  the  twelfth  century,  such  as  those  of 
which  a  specimen t  is  here  given.  Let  our  readers  contrast 
this  with  earlier  pictures,  such  as  those  figured  above,  pp. 
22  and  24. 

The  mosaic  picture  here  reproduced  (see  opposite)  was 
commenced  by  Pope  Calixtus  II.  (11 19  to  11 24),  and  com- 
pleted by  Anastasius  IV,  (1153,  1154).  And  these  two 
Popes  are  represented  kneeling  at  the  feet  of  this  '  Queen 
of  Heaven,'  and  embracing  them  in  an  attitude  of  adoration. 

And  thus  by  successive  steps,  such  as  have  now  been 
placed  before  our  readers,  the  contradiction  is  made  com- 
plete, between  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  and  that  of 
mediaeval  Rome.  In  Holy  Scripture  we  are  told,  and  in  the 
earlier  pictures  of  the  Catacombs  we  are  again  and  again 

*  For  the  literary  evidence  bear-  tenth  to  the  fourteenth  centuries  see 

ing  upon  this  subject  see  Appendix  Seroux  d'Agincourt,  '  Peinture,'  vol. 

(C)  at  the  end  of  this  volume.  v.  PI.  xviii.  ;  and  '  Vestiarium  Chris- 

t  For  other   examples  from   the  tianum,'  PI.  xlv. 


56  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

reminded,  how  the  Magi,  divinely  guided,  came  where  were 
the  young  Child  and  His  mother  ;  and  how,  so  coming, 
they  fell  down  and  worshipped  Him.  In  this  crowning 
monument  of  Roman  superstition  we  see  two'"'  Popes  repre- 
sented as  coming,  like  those  Magi,  into  that  holy  presence  ; 
and  they,  so  coming,  fall  down  and  worship  her. 

Fifteenth  Century. 

One  example  must  suffice,  out  of  the  many  to  which  we 
might  refer,  in  connexion  with  our  present  subject,  in  the 
fifteenth  century.  It  will  bring  before  us,  at  a  single  glance 
(and  a  single  glance  upon  a  subject  so  repulsive  is  all  that 
we  will  venture  upon),  the  horrible  depravity  which,  in  the 
very  centre  of  Roman  Christendom,  and  on  the  very  throne, 
as  Romanists  hold,  of  St.  Peter,  could  coexist  with  extra- 
vagant devotion  to  the  so-called  *  honours  of  Mary.'  We 
will  not  trust  ourselves  to  use  words  of  our  own  here,  but 
will  rather  quote  the  description  of  one  who  writes  simply 

*  Our  readers  will  ask  how  two  of  Calixtus.  He  also  expresses  his 
Popes  come  to  be  represented  as  belief  that  the  large  figure  (iiow  that 
each  having  the  'square  nimbus,'  of  the  Virgin)  was  originally  intended 
indicating  that  the  person  repre-  for  our  Lord  by  Calixtus,  but  that 
sented  was  then  living.  The  an-  Anastasius  made  considerable  alter- 
swer  is  suggested  in  what  we  have  ations  in  it,  and  so  substituted  the 
above  stated,  therein  following  Pape-  Virgin  Mary  for  the  Saviour.  [A 
brochius  ('  Acta  Sanctorum,'  Maius^  significant  change  !]  The  mosaic  is 
Propylseum,  p.  320),  who  accounts  also  figured  in  Muratori,  '  Rerum 
for  this  peculiarity  by  the  fact  (whe-  Italicarum  Scriptores,'  t.  ii.  p.'4i7. 
ther  known  or  presumed  I  do  not  Our  own  representation  is  repro- 
feel  sure)  that  Calixtus  began  the  duced,  by  photography,  from  a  draw- 
mosaic,  and  represented  himself,  but  ing  in  the  collection  of  Pope  Cle- 
that  Anastasius  completed  it,  and  ment  XI. 
put  his  own  eifigy  opposite  to  that 


A  REMARKABLE  MONUMENT  AT  ROME.  57 

as  an  historian  of  art  : — '  07ie  of  the  frescoes  in  the  Vatican 
represents  Giulia  Fariiese  in  the  character  of  the  Madonna, 
and  Pope  Alexander  VI.  (the  infaniotcs  Borgia)  kneeling  at 
her  feet  in  the  character  of  a  votary!  The  same  writer  goes 
on  to  say,  *  Under  the  influence  of  the  Medici,  the  churches 
of  Florence  were  filled  with  pictures  of  the  Virgin,  in  which 
the  only  thing  aimed  at  was  an  alluring,  and  even  mere- 
tricious beauty.  Savonarola  thundered  from  his  pulpit,  in 
the  garden  of  S.  Marco,  against  these  impieties.  He  ex- 
claimed against  the  profaneness  of  those  who  represented 
the  meek  mother  of  Christ  in  gorgeous  apparel,  with  head 
unveiled,  and  under  the  features  of  women  too  well  and 
publicly  known.  He  emphatically  declared,  that  if  painters 
knew,  as  well  as  he  did,  the  influence  of  such  pictures  in 
perverting  simple  minds,  they  would  hold  their  own  works 
in  horror  and  detestation,  Savonarola  yielded  to  none  in 
orthodox  reverence  for  the  Madonna,  but  he  desired  that 
she  should  be  represented  in  an  orthodox  manner.  He  pe- 
rished at  the  stake,  but  not  till  after  he  had  made  a  bonfire 
in  the  Piazza  at  Florence  of  the  offensive  effigies  :  he  pe- 
rished— persecuted  to  death  by  the  Borgia  family.'* 

Eighteenth  Century. 

Before  we  conclude,  we  are  bound  to  take  notice  of  a 
remarkable  monument  at  Rome,  which  may  well  be  thought 

*  Jameson's  'Legends  of  the  Ma-  in  literature,  how  baneful  was  the 

donna,'  2nd  edit.  (Longmans,  1857),  fruit  of  the  classical  revival,  where 

Introduction,   p.   xxxi.     The  whole  there  was  no  better  Christianity  to 

passage  is  well  worth  consulting,  as  deal  with  it  than  that  which   pre- 

showing,  by  the  evidence  of  art,  that  vailed  in  Italy  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 

of  which  there  is  abundant  evidence  tury. 


5^  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

entirely  subversive  of  the  conclusions  to  which  the  facts, 
above  stated,  all  point.  A  series  of  mosaics  is  shown  at 
Rome  as  dating  from  the  fifth  century.  One  who  saw  them 
for  the  first  time  would  be  struck  with  the  remarkable 
confirmation  of  modern  Roman  doctrine  which  they  afford. 
In  a  picture  of  the  Worship  of  the  Magi,  in  one  of  the 
oldest  churches  now  remaining,  there  is  to  be  seen  now, 
what  we  have  at  this  moment  in  exact  facsimile  before  us 
— the  Virgin  Mary  marked  out  by  2.  golden  nimbus  (peculiar 
to  our  blessed  Lord  and  to  herself),  and  so  exalted  in 
celestial  honour  above  the  four  angels  (probably  archangels) 
who  are  behind  the  throne  of  Him,  who  was  at  once  Son  of 
Man  and  Son  of  God.  For  the  angels  have  a  nimbus,  it  is 
true,  but  it  is  of  a  bluish  white,  suggestive  of  light ;  but  it 
is  not  of  gold,  as  is  that  of  the  Virgin,  Not  only  so,  but 
the  dress  of  the  Virgin  herself  is  such  as  was  only  assigned 
to  a  Queen  ;  viz.  a  golden  tunic  and  scarlet  shoes  (with 
these,  however,  a  large  black  'palla,'  suggestive  of  altogether 
other  ideas). 

What  do  our  readers  suppose  to  be  the  real  worth  of 
this  seeming  testimony  to  the  antiqidty  of  the  doctrine  now 
inculcated  at  Rome  ?  After  reading  what  has  been  already 
before  them,  they  will  probably  anticipate  the  reply.  This 
mosaic,  so  eloquent  in  its  testimony  to  the  catholicity  of 
modern  Romanism,  is  nothing  less  than  the  mosaic  of 
Xystus  III.  already  described  and  figured  (see  pp.  36,  37), 
not  as  it  originally  was  drawn,  but  as  it  was  rearranged  m 
the  time  of  Boniface  XIV.,  so  as  to  bring  into  conformity 
with  modern  teaching  what  had,  up  to  that  time,  borate  un- 
mistakable  testimony  against  it. 

Our  readers  will  naturally  ask,  on  what  evidence  we  can 


A  REMARKABLE  MONUMENT  TN  ROME.  59 

prove  that  the  representation  given  above  (p.  37)  really 
represents  more  truly  the  older  state  of  the  mosaic,  than  the 
mosaic  itself,  as  it  may  now  be  seen  at  Rome  ?  We  reply, 
that  we  have  two  nearly  contemporary,  but  independent  and 
unimpeachable,  witnesses  of  what  the  mosaic  was  some  200 
years  ago  :  one  being  Ciampinus,  a  Roman  archaeologist  of 
acknowledged  authority  ;  the  other  being  no  less  a  person 
than  Pope  Clement  XI.  The  former  of  the  two,  Ciampinus, 
in  his  '  Monumenta  Vetera  '  (t.  i.  p.  200),  gives  an  engraving 
of  the  whole  series  of  mosaics,  of  which  this  of  the  Worship 
of  the  Magi  forms  a  part.  This,  however,  is  so  barbarously 
executed,  that  we  could  not  have  appealed  to  it  with  any 
confidence  had  it  stood  alone.  Fortunately,  however,  he 
has  given  us  an  elaborate  verbal  description  of  the  whole  ; 
and  his  description,  coupled  with  his  engraving,  entirely 
bears  out,  in  every  point  of  importance,  the  exactness  of  the 
drawing  supplied  by  Pope  Clement.  The  latter,  when  Car- 
dinal Albano,  formed  a  large  archaeological  collection,  and 
among  them  some  twelve  large  volumes  of  drawings,  two  of 
which  consist  exclusively  of  ecclesiastical  monuments.  After 
the  lapse  of  a  century  or  more  this  collection  was  purchased, 
at  Rome,  for  an  English  monarch  ;  and  from  this  source 
now  comes  to  light,  yet  half  a  century  later,  the  drawing 
which  we  have  exactly  reproduced  above.  To  make  this 
subject  complete,  we  lay  before  our  readers  an  exact  repre- 
sentation (p.  63)  of  the  present  state  of  the  mosaic.  It  will 
be  instructive  to  the  student  of  antiquity  to  observe  how 
slight  a  modification  of  an  ancient  monument  will  suffice  to 
give  it  a  meaning  the  exact  opposite  of  that  which  the  original 
was  calculated  to  convey.     (See  above,  pp.  36  to  40.) 


6o  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

Recapitulatio7i. 

Our  historical  survey  has  already  occupied  so  much 
space,  that  it  may  be  well  briefly  to  recapitulate  that,  which, 
in  greater  detail,  and  with  all  necessary  reference  to  autho- 
rities, has  now  been  brought  under  review, 

1.  First  four  Cent2Lrics.  —  Of  all  the  pictures  in  the 
Catacombs,  the  date  of  which  can  be  referred  to  the  first 
four  centuries  of  our  era,  there  is  not  one,  in  which  the 
Virgin  Mary  is  represented,  which  is  not  purely  Scriptural 
in  its  character.  Even  if  (which  is  doubtful)  some  of  the 
figures  known  as  '  Oranti '  had  reference  to  her,  these  figures 
precisely  resemble  others  in  which  ordinary  persons,  recently 
deceased,  were  represented,  whether  men  or  women.  Chris- 
tian art  at  this  time,  to  use  Dr.  Northcote's  own  expression, 
was  kept  strictly  ivithin  the  limits  of  the  canonical  books  of 
Holy  Scripture.     (See  pp.    ii   to  32.) 

2.  Fifth  and  Sixth  Centuries.  —  In  the  more  public  mo- 
numents of  Rome  and  Ravenna,  which  date  from  400  to 
600  A.D.,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  those  earlier 
pictures  of  the  Catacombs.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  one 
monument  of  them  all  which  was  evidently  intended  for- 
mally to  embody  the  faith  of  the  Church,  as  proclaimed  in 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  just  previously,  the  natural  arrange- 
ment of  the  scene,  in  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  is  pur- 
posely departed  from,  in  such  a  way  as  to  mark  that  the 
Virgin  Mary,  however  near  to  our  Lord  in  respect  of  His 
incarnation,  had  no  place  upon  the  throne  which  belongs  to 
Him  and  to  Him  alone.     (See  pp.   32  to  45.) 

In  less  important  works  of  art,  such  as  might  be  dictated 
rather  by  private  fancy  than  by  the  deliberate  judgment  of 


RECAPITULATION.  6 1 

the  chief  representatives  of  the  Church,  we  find  at  this  time, 
in  one  or  two  instances  here  and  there,  traces  of  legendary- 
fables  concerning  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  in  others  (as  the 
'  Vetri  Ornati,'  or  ornamented  glasses)  indications  of  con- 
siderable advance,  on  the  part  of  some,  in  the  honours  paid 
to  her,  as  to  other  Saints.     (See  n.  §,  p.  41.) 

3.  Seventh  and  Eighth  Centuries. — Side  by  side  with  con- 
vincing proof  s  of  a  rapidly  progressing  barbarism  in  Italy  at 
this  time,  we  find  now,  even  in  public  monuments,  figures  of 
saints,  and  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  intruded  into  those  portions 
of  the  older  churches,  which  had  hitherto  been  exclusively 
devoted  to  proclaiming  the  glory  of  the  risen  Saviour. 
Now  first,  according  to  the  chief  historian ''"  of  Chris- 
tian art,  the  homage  paid  to  the  Virgin  Mary  was  not 
to  be  distinguished  from  that  rendered  to  the  Lord  of 
all.     (See  pp.  45  to  48.) 

4.  Ninth  and  later  Centtiries. — In  the  ninth  century,  for 
the  first  time — a  period  of  the  greatest  barbarism  in  Italy, 
though  of  a  brief  revival,  under  the  auspices  of  Charle- 
magne, in  France  and  parts  of  Germany — there  appear 
upon  the  walls  of  churches,  at  Capua  and  at  Rome,  re- 
presentations of  the  Virgin  Mary  enthroned,  and  in  all  the 
splendours  of  royal  estate,  in  dress  of  purple  and  gold,  a 
golden  crown  upon  her  head,  and  scarlet  shoes  upon  her 
feet. 

Now  for  the  first  time  is  the  apocryphal  legend  of  the 
Assumption  embodied  in  representation  upon  the  same 
walls. 

And  from  this  ninth  century  onwards,  in  an  age  which 


*  See  above,  pp.  47,  48. 


62  THE  CULTUS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY. 

Roman  Catholic'"'  historians  of  the  greatest  repute  have 
denounced  as  the  most  horribly  corrupt,  and  the  most 
barbarously  ignorant,  of  all  which  a  Roman  annalist  has, 
with  shame  and  confusion  of  face,  to  describe, — in  this  age 
we  find  one  step  of  advance  after  another  made  in  the 
exaltation  of  the  Virgin  to  heavenly  and  divine  honours. 
And  the  whole  series  culminates  in  mosaics  such  as  those  of 
the  twelfth  century,  in  which  the  worship,  that  of  old  had 
been  offered  to  God  alone,  is  diverted  from  our  Lord  to  be 
bestowed  upon  Mary ;  or,  worse  yet,  in  a  picture  yet  300 
years  later  in  date,  in  which,  upon  the  walls  of  the  Vatican 
Palace  itself,  and  by  the  orders  of  a  Pope,  the  worship  of 
Christendom  is  embodied  under  the  guise  of  an  Alex- 
ander Borgia  kneeling  as  a  votary  at  the  feet  of  a  Giulia 
Farnese.     (See  pp.  48  to  59.) 

Contrast  these  with  the  beautiful  and  purely  Scriptural 

*  See  the  passage   quoted   from      a   Johanne   scilicet   viii ad 

Cardinal  Baronius  in  '  Vestiarium  Leonem  ix.  usque,  qui  primus  a 
Christianum,'  Introduction,  p.  Ixxxiii.  Deo  vocatus  velut  alter  Aaron  anti- 
note.  I  add  here  a  passage,  less  quam  pontificum  integritatem  e  coelo 
generally  known,  from  the  '  Chrono-  in  sedem  apostolicam  revocavit,  a 
graphia' of  Genebrardus,  Archbishop  virtute  majorum  prorsus  defecerunt 
of  Aix  (lib.  iv.  p.  553):  — '  Infelix  apostatse  apotacticive,  potius  quam 
dicitur  hoc  sseculum,  exhaustis  ho-  apostolici.'  This  language  was  too 
minibus  ingenio  et  doctrina  claris,  truthful  to  be  acceptable  at  Rome, 
sive  etiam  claris  principibus,  et  pon-  and  it  brought  both  the  Archbishop 
tificibus,  in  quo  nihil  fere  dignum  and  his  book  into  disgrace.  In  all 
memonaposteritatisgestumsit;unde  the  later  editions  of  the  '  Chrono- 
ferunt  tunc  repertum  fuisse  quoddam  graphia'  (an  abridgment  of  Universg.! 
monstrum  capite  canino  et  cseteris  History)  a  Church  History  by  Ar- 
membris  humanis,  quod  statum  illius  naldus  Pontacus  (a  somewhat  un- 
temporis  mirifice  referret.'  And  scrupulous  Romanist)  is  substituted 
again  : — '  Hoc  quidem  infelix  quod  for  that  of  Genebrardus. 
per  annos  cl.,   Pontifices  circiter  l., 


RECAPITULATION.  63 

picture,  which  De  Rossi,  in  common  with  ourselves,  places 
first  in  the  whole  series  of  these  monuments  {supra,  p.  24), 
and  our  readers  will  be  able  to  judge  of  the  gulf  which 
separates  the  Marian  Rome  of  the  ninth  and  all  later 
centuries,  from  the  Christian  Rome  of  the  second. 

The  conclusions  which,  we  venture  to  think,  any  un- 
prejudiced reader  would  draw  from  the  evidence  hitherto 
produced,  will  be  found  confirmed  by  the  literary  evidence, 
alleged  more  in  detail  in  the  Appendices  (A  to  C)  at  the 
end  of  this  volume. 


THE  MOSAIC  OF  XYSTUS  III.  (above,  p.  371,  as  altered  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. 


[The  nimbus  of  our  Lord,  and  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  of  gold  :  that  of  the  angels  white,  or  light  blue.  The 
dress  of  our  Lord  is  white  with  a  black  stripe  ;  that  of  the  Virgin,  cloth  of  gold,  with  scarlet  shoes. 
The  outer  mantle  black.  None  of  these  colours,  in  the  dress  of  the  Virgin,  are  found  in  the  original 
mosaic,  as  described  by  Ciampinus,  and  as  drawn  in  the  Collection  of  Pope  Clement  XI.] 


■iT 


PART    II. 


MONUMENTS  OF  CHRISTIAN  ART, 


HAVING  REFERENCE  TO  THE  SUPREMACY 


CLAIMED    FOR 


^\\\  ^i[\  4  |[ijmt[. 


NOTICE. 

The  two  Papers  which  folloiv  were  written  as  an  Exereise  to  be 
read  iti  the  Divinity  School  at  Oxford.  I  have  added  some 
additional  matter  since  that  time,  but  the  pressure  of  other 
duties,  to  which  I  was  bound  to  give  precedence,  has  prevented 
my  recasting  them  entirely,  as  I  could  have  wished  to  do,  before 
publication.  I  mention  this  in  order  to  account  for  some  pecu- 
liarities in  the  form  of  these  Essays,  for  zvhich  I  must  ask 
the  indulgence  of  my  Readers. 


Eton,  Feb.   19,  1870. 


THE    SUPREMACY    CLAIMED    FOR 
THE    SEE    OF    ROME. 


The  literary  monuments  bearing  upon  questions  now  and 
for  some  time  past  disputed  within  the  Church,  have  been 
under  the  examination  of  Divines  and  Historians  ever  since 
the  revival  of  learning'.  But  there  is  another  larore  class  of 
monuments,  those  of  early  Christian  and  Mediaeval  art,  to 
which,  in  this  country  at  least,  as  far  as  I  have  observed,  very 
little  attention  has  been  given.  There  is,  however,  scarcely 
one,  if  one,  of  the  many  questions  now  most  prominent  as 
matter  of  discussion  among  Churchmen,  upon  which  these 
monuments  of  art  have  not  important  evidence  to  give. 
What  that  evidence  is  upon  one  such  question,  that  of  the 
Supremacy  claimed  for  the  See  of  Rome,  it  will  be  my 
object  to  show  in  the  present  paper. 

I  propose  to  set  before  you,  in  their  historical  order,  a 
series  of  monuments  bearing  upon  this  question,  either  in 
representation  the  most  exact  that  can  be  obtained,  or  by 
description  where  that  cannot  be. 

The  Diptych  of  St.  Paul. 

First  in  the  whole  series  is  an  Ivory  Diptych  (see  PI.  iv. 
the  *  Dipt}'ch  of  St.  Paul '),  to  which  I  venture  to  think  that 


68  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

a  very  great  historical  interest  attaches,  while  it  may  claim  a 
hifh  place,  on  artistic  grounds,  among  the  monuments  of 
primitive  Christendom. 

This  '  Diptych,'  technically  so  called,  is  formed  upon  the 
model  of  those  Imperial  and  Consular'"  Diptychs,  of  both  old 
and  new  Rome,  many  of  which,  dating  from  the  third  century 
onwards,    are    preserved    in    the    principal    Museums    and 
Cathedral  Treasuries  of  Europe.     That  now  before  you  has 
been    known    hitherto    only  to    a    very  limited    number  of 
persons    interested    in    archaeological    study,  and    by   them 
under  the  title  of 'The  Naming  of  the  Beasts  in  Paradise.' 
In  the  only  published  work,  that  of  A.  Duval,  in  which  it  is 
figured  (one  leaf  only),  it  is  described  (quite  wrongly,  as  you 
will  see),  as  a  Consular  Diptych.      Its  date  may  be  deter- 
mined with  great  confidence,  as  at  any  rate  not  later  than 
the  year  400  a.d.,  even  if  we  have  regard  only  to  the  beauty 
of  its  execution.     And  on  grounds  of  historical  probability, 
we  may  reasonably  doubt  whether  after  that  time  St.  Peter 
would  have  been  represented  (as  here  in  all  probability  he 
is),  as  in  a  position  secondary  to  that  of  St.  Paul.      Before 
proceeding  further,  I  may  mention  all  that  I  have  been  able 
to  learn  as  to  the  history  of  this  monument.      I  find  it  first 
noticed  as  forming  part  of  the  collection  of  Baron   Denon, 
who  was  one  of  the  savans  employed  by  Napoleon  I.  from 
time  to  time  in  carrying  off  treasures  from  Museums  and 
Libraries,  in  countries  subjected  to  his  power.    And  amongst 
other  places,  I  find  evidence  that  he  was  at  Rome  with  the 


*  Specimens  of  these  Consular  tianum  /  and  many  more  in  Gorius 
Diptychs  may  be  seen  in  Plates  xxii.  ('  Thesaurus  Veterum  Diptychorum,' 
and  xxiii.  of  my  '  Vestiarium  Chris-      3  vols.  fol.  Florence,  1759-) 


Vincent  Brooks  J)ayfcSon.M 
THE   TWO    LEAVES    OV     THE    DIPTYCH     OE     -^An^T    PA  HE 


THE  DIPTYCH  OF  ST.   PAUL.  69 

revolutionary  armies,  and  interesting  himself  (whether  on 
public  or  on  private  account,  or  on  both),  with  its  archaeo- 
lo""ical  treasures.  And  I  think  I  shall  not  be  wrone  in 
thinking,  that  it  was  there  and  then  that  he  became 
possessed  of  this  Diptych,  whose  true  character,  however,  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  perceived.  After  his  death  it  was 
figured  as  forming  part  of  his  collection  by  Amaury  Duval/"' 
It  is  now  in  the  hands  of  M.  Carrand  of  Lyons,  and  has 
been  reproduced  in  facsimile  by  the  Arundel  Society,  from 
a  cast  taken  from  the  original  by  Mr.  Nisbet.  I  shall  be 
very  glad  of  any  assistance  in  tracing  its  earlier  history. 
Such  works  as  these  were  almost,  if  not  altogether,  confined 
to  the  two  cities  of  Rome  and  Byzantium,  in  early  times. 
And  this,  from  its  representing  an  incident  in  St.  Paul's 
voyage  to  Rome,  and  the  two  Apostles,  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, 
who  were  specially  connected  with  the  Roman  church,  was 
originally  produced,  we  may  feel  sure,  at  Rome,  probably 
as  an  offering  for  the  church  of  St.  Paul.  (See  Ciampini 
De  S.   ALd.   cap.   vi.) 

Its  true  character  you  will,  I  think,  have  no  difficulty  in 
determining.  On  the  more  important  of  the  two  sides  of 
the  Diptych  (that  on  the  spectator  s  right),  three  scenes  are 
represented,  having  reference,  each  of  them,  to  events  in 
the  life  of  St.  Paul.  In  the  centre  is  the  scene  described 
in  Acts,  xxviii.  i-6.  You  may  see  the  fire  of  dried 
wood  burning  near  the  Apostle's  feet  (St.  Paul  himself  is 
seen  standing  at  the  spectators  left) ;  the  viper  is  falling 
from  his  hand ;  and  in  the  centre  of  the  group  is  seen 
Publius,  the  chief  officer  of  the  island,  holding  up  his  hands 

*  Monuments  des  Arts  du  Dessin,  4  vols.  fol.  Paris,  1S29. 


70  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

in  astonishment  at  what  he  sees.  A  soldier  is  in  attendance 
on  him,  who  occupies  the  last  place  on  the  spectators 
right. 

Below  this  group  is  yet  another,  having  reference  to 
what  is  recorded  somewhat  later  in  the  same  chapter  of  the 
Acts  (ver.  9).  Two  out  of  those  '  many  which  had  in- 
firmities in  the  island,'  are  there  represented.  And  the 
same  soldier  who  had  appeared  above  as  in  attendance 
upon  Publius,  is  seen  here  again,  evidently  bidding  these 
sick  persons  go  to  St.  Paul,  to  whom  he  points,  for  the 
healing  that  they  need. 

Postponing  for  a  moment  any  reference  to  the  upper- 
most of  the  three  groups,  I  will  ask  you  to  observe,  in  pass- 
ing, the  other  leaf  of  the  Diptych.  If  that  had  stood  alone,  as 
an  isolated  picture,  we  might  perhaps  accept  the  interpreta- 
tion implied  in  the  title,  '  Adam  naming  the  Beasts.'  But, 
as  it  is,  we  may  with  good  reason  assume,  that  this  side  of 
the  Diptych  has  an  intended  reference  to  the  other.  And, 
if  we  regard  the  two  as  mutually  related,  we  shall  probably 
be  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  in  the  one  picture  we  see 
placed  before  us  Man,  and  the  lower  animals,  as  they  were' 
before  the  Fall,  brought  about  as  this  was  through  the  guile 
of  that  serpent,  who,  with  malice  concentrated  in  his  features, 
is  here  entering  the  peaceful  Paradise  before  him.  In  the 
other  we  may  see  suggested  the  restoration  of  humanity 
through  the  power  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  whose  triumph 
over  that  of  the  serpent  is  embodied  in  the  miracle  of  Melita. 
In  two  words.  Paradise  lost  through  the  malice  of  the  serpent, 
and  Paradise  ^'-eopened  throngh  Him  who  crnshed  the  serpent's 
pozver — these  appear  to  be  the  leading  ideas  traceable  in 
those  parts  of  the  Diptych  which  have  been  noticed  hitherto. 


THE  DIPTYCH  OF  ST.   PAUL.  7 1 

But  I  proceed  now,  from  this  more  general  description, 
to  speak  in  more  detail  of  that  upper  group  of  the  right- 
hand  leaf,  wherein  lies,  for  our  present  purpose,  the  special 
interest  of  the  monument  now  before  you. 

No  detailed  argument  will  be  needed  to  show  that  it  is 
no  Roman  Consul  who  occupies  the  middle  place  in  this 
group,  but  the  same  Paul  whose  features  we  have  already 
seen  pourtrayed  among  those  of  the  central  picture  already 
described.  A  moment's  comparison  of  the  two  faces  will 
serve  to  show  their  absolute,  and  evidently  designed, 
identity.  The  same  high,  bald  head,'"  and  peculiar  pointed 
beard,  are  seen  in  both  groups.  And  as  no  one,  not  even 
that  one  foreign  Editor  already  mentioned  (A.  Duval),  has 
any  doubt  as  to  the  person  intended,  when  figured  on  the 
spectator  s  left  in  that  central  group  (the  person  who  is 
shaking  off  the  serpent  from  his  hand),  it  follows,  as  matter 
of  certainty,  that  St.  Paul  also  is  the  person  represented 
above,  as  occupying  what  may  be  described  as  an  apostolic 
throne,  or  chair  of  state. 


*  Compare  the  description  of  St.  Apostle  and  beheaded  in  his  stead, 

Paul's   personal   appearance  in  the  that  he,  too,  was  bald  :   koX  avroc 

*  Philopatris '  generally  attributed  to  apafaXav^oe  vTrdpxt>iy-    (Northcote's 

Lucian.    The  Apostle  is  there  scoff-  R.  S.,  p.  285.)     Compare    Hieron. 

ingly  described  as  TaXiXalog,  avafa-  Comment,  in  Ep.  ad  Gal.  i.  18.    Dr. 

Xarrme,  ETrippipoQ,  eg  rpiTov  ovpavov  Northcote  has  published  a  bronze 

aepoftariicrag  —  'the  bald-headed ^x\^  medal,  now  in  the  Vatican  Library, 

long-nosed  Galilaean,  who  mounted  found  by  Boldetti  in  the  Cemetery 

through  the  air  into  the  third  hea-  of  Domitella,  and  attributed  to  the 

ven.'     And  in  the  Apocryphal  Acts  era  of  the  Flavian  emperors  at  Rome, 

of  the  Apostles,  edited  by  Tischen-  In  this  the  busts  of  the  two  Apostles 

dorf,  it  is  said  of  Dioscorus  the  ship-  are   represented,    and    they  bear  a 

master,  who  had  followed  St.  Paul  considerable  resemblance  to   those 

to  Rome,  and  was  mistaken  for  the  of  the  Diptych  before  us. 


72  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

One  of  the  three  figures,  and  that  the  most  important, 
is  thus  at  once  determined,  as  being  that  of  St.  Paul.  But 
a  question  still  remains,  Who  are  the  other  two  ?  To  this 
question  also  an  answer  can  be  given ;  but  I  willingly 
allow  that,  with  such  evidence  as  alone  is  open  to  us  at 
present,  we  cannot  claim  any  absolute  assent  to  the  solution 
I  propose. 

And  first  for  the  personage  on  St.  Paul's  right,  to  whom 
the  Apostle  appears  to  be  giving  Benediction.  We  have 
at  once  a  clue  to  his  identification,  in  the  fact  of  his  hold- 
ing in  his  left  hand  a  Codex,  or  bound  book,  which  is  no 
other  than  the  book  of  the  Gospels.  This  book  was,  as  we 
know  from  authorities '''"  of  early  date,  laid  on  the  head  of 
a  Bishop  at  the  time  of  his  consecration,  as  being  '  the  true 
Tiara  of  the  Gospel.'  Such  a  book,  held  in  the  left  hand, 
as  in  the  monument  before  you,  was,  in  almost  all  the  early 
monuments  of  Christian  art,  the  traditionary  attribute  of  a 
Bishop,  while  that  of  an  Apostle  t  was  the  older  form  of  a 

*  The  Sermon   '  De  Uno  Legis-  know  that  he  then  receives  the  true 

latore,'  attributed  to  St.  Chrysostom,  tiara  of  the  Gospel ;  and  may  learn 

and  quoted  at  length  in  '  Vestiarium  this  also,  that  though  he  be  head  of 

Christianum/  p.  53,  notes  89  and  90.  all,  yet  doth  he  act  in  subjection  to 

*  It  is  cornma,nded  that  the  head  of  God's  laws  ;  though  he  be  ruler  of 

the   Priest '   [here   the   High-Priest,  all,  yet  is  he,  too,  under  rule  to  the 

according  to  what  follows]  '  be  not  law ;  though  in  all  things  a  setter 

bare  but  covered,  in  order  that  he  forth   of  the  Word,   yet  himself  to 

who  is  head  of  the  people  may  learn  that  Word  in  subjection.' 
that  he,  too,  hath  a  Head  in  hea-  t  See  further    'Vest.   Christ.'   p. 

ven.     For  this  cause  in  the  Church  xli.     For  examples  of  the  two  in- 

also,  at  the  consecration  of  Bishops  signia  here  spoken  of,  as  proper  to 

('Vest.    Christ.'  notes   61   and  90),  Apostles  and  to  Bishops  respectively, 

the  gospel  of  Christ  is  laid  upon  their  see  ibid.,  PH.  xxv.   (St.  Gregory  the 

heads,  that  he  who  is  ordained  may  Great) ;  xxx.  St.  Cornelius  (of  Rome) 


THE  DIPTYCH  OF  ST.   PAUL.  "J  T^ 

'  Scroll '  or  '  Roll '  of  a  book  {vohimcn),  associated  in  idea 
with  the  Scriptures  in  their  original  form.  This  attribute 
served  to  designate  them  as  charged  on  Christ's  behalf  with 
messages  of  the  divine  Word  to  man.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  this,  that,  in  the  Diptych  before  you,  St.  Paul  holds  in 
his  hand  a  '  Volumen,'  or  '  roll '  of  a  book,  while  the  Bishop 
(as  I  venture  now  to  call  him)  holds  a  Codex  of  more 
modern  form,  much  such  as  those  still  in  use.'"' 

Thus  far  I  do  not  anticipate  much  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  interpretations  hitherto  proposed.  But  there  is 
yet  another  personage  to  be  identified ;  and  at  this  point 
agreement  can  no  longer  be  anticipated.  As  to  this,  then, 
let  me  begin  by  saying,  that  if  any  one  were  to  examine  for 
himself  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture  t  (more  particularly 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  the  Book  of  the  Acts),  and 
that  of  St.  Clement's  first  Epistle,  the  conclusion  he  would 
draw  would  probably  be,  that  the  actual  Founder   (under 

and  St.  Cyprian ;  xxxi.   St.   Xystus  Gospels,    though   it   has   been   dis- 

and  St.  Optatus  ;  xxxviii.  (four  Apo-  placed  in  favour  of  the  mitre,  from 

sties) ;   xl.   Leo  IV. ;    xli.   Tarasius  its  traditionary  pre-eminence,  is  still 

and  other  Eastern  Patriarchs  at  the  laid  (and  held  by  an  assistant)  at 

Seventh   Council ;   and   other  later  the  back  of  the  head,  and  on  the 

illustrations.  neck,  of  the  '  consecrandus.'     [Pon- 

*  The  following  fact  is  mentioned  tificale  Romanum  Clementis  VIII., 

here  as  a  curious  illustration  of  the  &c.  Paris,  fol.  1664,  pp.  66,  71,  76, 

way  in   which  mediaeval   usage,  at  et  sqq?^     I  need  hardly  remind  the 

Rome  more  especially,  has  preserved  reader  of  the  delivery  of  the  Bible, 

some  of  the  most  ancient  features  as  an  appointed  part  of  the  rite  of 

of  primitive  Christianity,  even  while  Ordination  to  the  Priesthood,  and 

overlaying   and   all  but  concealing  of  the  Consecration  of  Bishops,  in 

them  under  the  accretions  of  later  our  own  Church, 
ages.     In   the   Consecration  of  Bi-  t  See  the  evidence  on  this  point 

shops,  as  prescribed  in  the  '  Ponti-  in  Appendix  (D)  at  the  end  of  this 

ficale   Romanum.'  the  Book   of  the  volume. 


74  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

Christ)  of  the  Roman  Church,  was  St.  Paul ;  that  this 
Apostle  both  wrote  his  Epistle,  and  arrived  at  Rome  as  a 
prisoner,  before  St.  Peter  was  in  any  way  connected  with 
the  Church  that  was  there ;  that  St.  Peter's  connection 
with  that  Church  was  mainly  through  his  martyrdom ;  St. 
Paul's  through  a  residence  there  of  considerable,  though 
interrupted,  duration,  before  the  time  of  that  martyrdom 
which  he  shared  with  St,  Peter.  He  would  conclude,  that 
St.  Paul  would  be  at  Rome  not  only  an  Apostle,  as  were 
others  of  the  twelve,  but  in  a  special  sense  the'''  Apostle 
of  the  Roman  Church,  as  being  its  Founder ;  but  that 
St.  Peter  when  at  Rome  was  \\v  hXkoT^ico  zavovi^  within  a 
spiritual  domain  which  already  owed  a  kind  of  personal 
allegiance  to  St.  Paul.  In  a  word  (if  the  earliest  historical 
indications  are  followed  rather  than  late  tradition),  St,  Paul 
at  Rome  would  be  not  Apostle  only,  but  Apostle  and 
Bishop,  occupying  a  place  such  as  that  held  at  Jerusalem 
by  James  the  Brother  of  the  Lord. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  without  significance  in  this  regard,  that 
among  the  frescoes  of  the  catacombs  the  only  figure  of  an 
Apostle  which  is  represented  separately  from  the  rest  of 
the  twelve,  is  that  of  St,  Paul,  described  as  Pavlvs  Pastor 
ArosTOLVS  t  side  by  side  with  a  figure  of  *  the  good  Shep- 
herd.' In  none  of  the  catacombs  is  St.  Peter  specially 
designated  by  name  or  attribute. 


*   By    '  Apostolus,'    when    abso-  ceftir,  si  non  exprimatur  quis   apo- 

lutely  used,   Western  writers  gene-  stolus  non  intcUigitur  nisi  Paulas' 
rally  designated    St.  Paul.     So   we  t  The  picture  of  St.  Paul  above 

learn,  among  others,    from    St.  Au-  mentioned   is    in   the    Cemetery  of 

gustine,  '  Contra  duas  Epist.  Pelag.'  St.  Priscilla.    See  Aringhi  R.  S.  t.  ii. 

lib.  iii.  cap.  iii.,  '■Apostolus  cum  di-  p.  273. 


THE  DIPTYCH  OF  ST.   PAUL.  75 

A  conclusion  such  as  this,  whicli  results  from  an  ex- 
amination of  Holy  Scripture,  and  of  the  evidence  to  be 
derived  from  the  earliest  Christian  literature,  is  one  which 
will  exactly  account  for  the  peculiar  phenomena  presented 
in  the  earliest  monuments  of  Christian  art,  in  which  SS. 
Peter  and  Paul  are  figured.  One  very  remarkable 
peculiarity  of'  the  Roman*  monuments  is,  that,  in  the 
numberless  instances  in  which  SS.  .Peter  and  Paul  are 
represented  on  either  hand  of  our  Lord,  no  definite  and  un- 
varying rule  of  precedence  is  observed.  The  prevailing 
rule,  to  which,  in  the  more  public  monuments,  as  the 
mosaics  of  churches,  there  are  few,  if  any,  early  exceptions, 
is  that  St.  Paul  is  placed  at  the  right  hand  of  our  Lord^ 
St.  Peter  at  the  left.  But  this  rule  has  its  exceptions.  In 
the  Vetri  Antichi,'\  so  called,  or  pieces  of  ornamented  glass, 
found  chiefly  in  the  Roman  cemeteries,  and  on  Roman 
Sarcophagi  of  the  fifth  |  and  later  centuries  (possibly  some 
may  be  of  the  fourth),  some  special  attributes  are  assigned 
to  St.  Peter,  and  marks  of  precedence  over  St.  Paul 
indicated  ;  peculiarities,  such  as  any  one  acquainted  with 
the  claims  put  forward  by  the  Roman  Church  from  the 
time  of  the  First  Council  of  Nicaea,  might  have  counted  with 


*  The   types    that    prevailed   at  but  one)   by  Dr.  Northcote  in  his 

Rome  reappear  elsewhere ;  as,  for  '  Roma   Sotterranea,'    St.    Peter   is 

example,    in   the    Sarcophagi    (fifth  represented,   instead   of  Moses,  as 

and  later  century)  at  Milan,  and  in  striking   the   rock  to   draw  out  re- 

the  South  of  France.     But  these  last  freshing  streams  for  the  people  of 

appear  to  me  to  be  direct  imitations  God. 

of  the  form  already  stereotyped,  so  |   I   am   speaking  here  of  those 

to  say,  at  Rome.  which  are  appealed  to,  for  contro- 

f  In  two  of  these,  preserved  in  versial  reasons,  by  Roman  contro- 

ihe  Vatican,  anil  figured  (to  name  versialists. 


76  ■  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

some  certainty  on  finding  in  monuments  executed  at  Rome 
itself. 

An  enumeration  of  all  the  known  monuments  antecedent 
to  the  year  800*  a.d.,  in  which  the  two  apostles  are  repre- 
sented together,  would  show  that,  in  a  very  large  majority 
of  cases,  the  place  at  our  Lord's  right  hand  is  assigned  to 
St.  Pant.  And  the  fact,  urged  by  some  Roman  archaeo- 
logists, that  in  some  instances,  at  least,  this  place  is  occu- 
pied by  St.  Peter,  is  precisely  what  clenches  the  argument 
in  favour  of  the  historical  conclusion  of  which  I  speak. 
If  the  rule  were  invariable  that  St.  Paul  occupied  the  one 
place,  St.  Peter  the  other,  there  would  be  some  show  of 
probability  for  the  assertion,  that  in  these  early  times  the 
place  of  honour  was  not  what  it  now  is  ;  that  the  spectator  s 
right,  not  the  right  hand  of  the  principal  personage,  in- 
dicated the  place  of  precedence.  But  the  varying  usage 
in  this  matter  which  does,  in  point  of  fact,  exist,  leaves  us  a 
choice  of  only  two  conclusions.  One  (which  no  one  at  all 
acquainted  with  antiquity  would  be  likely  to  accept),  that 
right  and  left,  in  point  of  precedence  of  honour,  were 
regarded  as  matter  of  indifference ;  the  other,  and,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  the  true  one,  that  at  Rome  there  was  one 
ground  of  precedence  for  St.  Paul  (in  respect  of  his  special 
relation,  as  founder,  to  that  Church),  another  ground  of 
precedence  for  St.  Peter,  in  respect  of  the  special  position 
which  he  occupied  in  the  apostolic  body.  And  so,  accord- 
ing to  varying  circumstances,  St.  Peter  at  one  time,  St. 
Paul  at  another,  would  be  represented  as  standing  \x,  h^ioiv 
rov  Ky^/of,  at  the  right  hand  of  our  Lord. 

*  The  old  traditionaiy  usage  asserts  itself,  in  many  instances,  even 
in   much  later  monuments. 


THE  DIPTYCH  OF  ST.   PAUL. 


11 


And  now,  though  after  a  long  digression,  I  may  re- 
turn to  the  monument  of  which  I  first  spoke,  the  Diptych 
of  St.  Paul.  And  I  think  you  will  admit  that  it  is,  at 
least,  not  an  improbable  supposition,  that,  in  the  monument 
before  us,  we  have  a  record  both  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  to 
Rome  (in  the  miracles  of  Melita),  and  of  his  subsequent  oc- 
cupation, at  Rome,  of  one  of  the  'apostolic  Sees  ;'  that  while 
the  apostle  who  occupies  the  '  throne '  (the  central  figure 
of  that  upper  group)  is  undoubtedly  St.  Paul,  the  bishop, 
who  stands  before  him,  is  to  be  understood  as  representing 
Linus,  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  and  lastly,  that  the  figure 
behind  the  throne  of  St.  Paul,  that  of  one  who  holds  in 
his  hand,  as  does  St.  Paul,  the  '  scroll,'  or  roll  of  a  book, 
which  is  the  attribute  of  an  apostle,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
representing    St.    Peter* — sharer    of   the    same    apostolic 


*  These  Essays  have  been  written 
not  without  a  hope  that  the  evidence 
they  allege  upon  disputed  points 
may  receive  a  candid  consideration 
from  some  who  may  differ,  and  per- 
haps very  widely,  from  the  conclu- 
sions in  support  of  which  I  write. 
Any  such  will  be  inclined  to  think 
that  St.  Peter  could  not,  especially  in 
a  Roman  monument  (assuming  that 
this  is  such),  occupy  such  a  position 
relatively  to  St.  Paul  as  is  suggested 
in  the  text.  I  will  venture,  there- 
fore, to  ask  them  to  compare  with 
this  plate  a  representation  of  the 
Three  Persons  of  the  Blessed  Trinity 
on  an  ancient  sarcophagus,  figured 
and  described  by  an  eminent  Ro- 
man antiquary,  P.  Garrucci.     Of  the 


Three  Persons  one  only  is  seated, 
and  this,  according  to  Garrucci's  in- 
terpretation, is  the  Word  of  God  ; 
while  He,  whom  G.  identifies  with 
the  Father,  stands  behind  the  seated 
figure,  much  as  does  St.  Peter  (if 
such  he  be)  in  this  diptych.  The 
grounds  of  Garrucci's  interpretation 
do  not  admit  of  being  briefly  stated. 
['  Dissertazioni  Archeologiche  di 
Raffaelle  Garrucci,'  vol.  ii.,  Roma, 
4to.  1865,  p.  I  sqq?\  Antiquaries 
acquainted  with  the  treatise  will  have 
no  difficulty  in  seeing  the  analogy 
between  the  explanation  he  gives  of 
the  peculiarities  of  that  sarcophagus, 
and  that  which  I  have  ventured  to 
suggest  for  the  diptych  here  de- 
scribed. 


78  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

office  with  St.  Paul,  and  united  with  him  in  counsel ;  but 
not,  like  him,  the  actual  founder,  under  God,  of  the  Roman 
Church,  and  the  immediate  head  of  its  line  of  apostolic 
bishops. 

Before  passing  on  to  yet  another  branch  of  my  subject, 
I  may  mention,  as  strongly  confirming  the  view  here  main- 
tained as  to  the  relation  to  the  Roman  Church  of  SS.  Paul 
and  Peter  respectively,  that  there  is  a  monument  (unedited 
as  far  as  I  know),  in  the  Royal  Library*  at  Windsor,  the 
peculiarities  of  which  can  only  be  accounted  for,  as  far  as  I 
am  able  to  see,  on  the  hypothesis  which  I  have  already 
suggested.  In  an  ancient  mosaic  there  represented,  the  two 
apostles  are  figured,  as  usual,  St.  Paul  on  the  right  hand, 
St.  Peter  on  the  left,  of  our  Lord.  And  while  St.  Paul 
holds  in  his  hand  the  symbol  (a  roll  of  a  book)  which 
designated  him  as  mi  apostle,  St.  Peter  holds  the  martyr's 
*  crown,'  or  chaplet,  which  marked  him  out  as  one  who  had 
witnessed,  by  his  death,  for  Christ,  Now,  as  both  these 
were  alike  apostles,  both  alike  martyrs,  what  more  natural 
explanation  of  this  difference  of  designation,  than  that 
St.   Peter's  special  claim  to  recognition  at  Rome  was  that 

*  In  a  collection  of  drawings  ori-  church  of  St.  Pudentiana,  showing 

ginally   made  for  Cardinal  Albano,  the   principal   figures   as  they   were 

afterwards     Clement     XI,       While  before  the  lower  part  of  the  mosaic 

speaking  of  this   collection  I  may  was  blocked  out  by  the  ivood-work  of 

mention   also,  what  will  be  of  in-  the  church.    The  figure  on  our  Lord's 

terest  to  many  archseologists,   both  right   hand    (commonly  interpreted 

at  Rome  and  elsewhere,  that  careful  of  late  as  being  St.  Matthew)  has 

drawings,  on  a  large  scale,  are  there  the  title  Pavlvs  inscribed  near  the 

preserved  of  the  famous  mosaic  of  feet.     That  on  the  left  of  our  Lord, 

our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  in  the  Petrvs,  in  a  similar  position. 


THE  DIPTYCH  OF  ST.   PAUL.  79 

of  his  martyrdom;  while,  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul,  the 
thought  of  his  apostolic  bishopric,  so  to  call  it,  over  the 
Church,  was  more  prominent  than  that  of  the  martyr's  death, 
wherewith  his  life  of  labour  was  crowned. 

I  willingly  allow,  however,  that,  as  against  any  clear 
historical  notice,  or  any  really  primitive,  general,  and  self- 
consistent  tradition,  inferences  such  as  these  would  weigh 
very  little.  But  when,  as  in  this  case,  the  traditions  con- 
cerning St.  Peter  as  specially  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  first 
appear  in  the  heretical  compilation  known  in  the  '  Clemen- 
tine Recognitions,'  and  then  with  a  distinct  party  purpose 
in  view ;  when  the  later  traditions  to  the  same  effect  (em- 
bodied* in  the  lists  of  Popes  preserved  by  Anastasius)  bear 
upon  the  face  of  them  the  marks  of  late  concoction  in 
support  of  the  claims  to  primacy  first,  and  afterwards  to 
supremacy,  put  forth  by  the  Roman  Church ;  when,  as  is 
unhappily  notorious,  that  Church,  in  support  of  these  claims, 
had  recourse  (through  ignorance,  we  may  charitably  be- 
lieve) to  decrees  of  the  first  Nicene  Council,  as  interpolated 
by  Roman  hands — a  falsification,  which  was  at  once  exposed 
almost  as  soon  as  it  was  attempted ;  with  all  these  facts  in 
view,  we  may,  without  presumption,  claim  for  these  monu- 
ments, in  their  cumulative  evidence,  a  weight  far  beyond 
what  would  attach  to  any  one  of  them  separately.  If  they 
fail  to  convince  opponents  pledged  to  a  foregone  conclusion 
(which  no  doubt  they  will  fail  to  do),  they  will  at  any  rate 
afford  interesting  and  valuable  indications  of  truth  to  all 
those  (I  trust  and  believe  they  are  an  ever-increasing 
number,  both  at  home  and    abroad)   who  search   into  an- 


*  St.  Jerome,  however,  writes  to  the  same  effect  in  one  place. 


8o  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

tiquity  with  minds  open  to  conviction,  and  with  a  single  eye 
to  the  truth,  and  the  truth  alone. 

I  have  dwelt  upon  these  earlier  monuments  at  greater 
length  than  I  had  intended,  because  of  their  great  intrinsic 
interest.  It  may  be  well,  however,  to  say,  before  quitting 
this  portion  of  my  subject,  that  in  these  arguments  on  the 
question,  whether  St.  Paul  or  St.  Peter  were  really  the 
first  '  Bishop  and  Apostle '  of  Rome,  we,  who  argue  against 
the  claims  of  the  Roman  Church,  occupy  a  position  of 
almost  unfair  advantage,  if  we  regard  the  matter  as  one  of 
mere  intellectual  fence.  For  the  debate  is  one  in  which,  if 
we  prove  our  point,  our  opponents  have  no  longer  a  ground 
to  stand  upon.  For  the  whole  weight  of  the  Roman  position 
rests  upon  two  assumptions ;  the  first,  that  St.  Peter  had 
not  only  priority,  and  in  some  sense  a  primacy,  of  honour 
and  dignity  among  the  Twelve,  but  had  rule  over  thern 
as  Christ's  vicar  upon  earth  ;  and  secondly,  that  he  was 
also  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  conveyed  (according  to 
Christ's  ordinance)  his  ozun  (primacy  or)  supremacy  to  his 
successors  in  that  particular  See.  If,  therefore,  we  show 
that  there  is  no  proof  of  St.  Peter's  having  been  Bishop  of 
Rome  at  all,  their  superstructure  falls  at  once  to  the  ground.* 
But  even  if  we  fail  to  show  this,  our  opponents  are 
scarcely  any  nearer  than  before  to  the  establishing  of  their 
own  point.  For  even  if  it  could  be  conclusively  proved 
that  St.  Peter,  rather  than  St.  Paul,  was  the  true  founder 
of  the  Roman  Church,  it  does  not  at  all  follow  that  the 
priority  or   primacy,   which,    in   some  sense,    has   generally 


*  For  the  early  traditions  on  this  subject  see  Appendix  (E)  at  the  end 
of  this  vohrnne. 


PETRUS,  OR  PETER.  8  I 

been  regarded  as  attaching  to  St.  Peter,  devolves,  from 
him,  upon  all  bishops  of  the  Roman  Church.  If  this  pri- 
macy were  hereditary  the  Bishops  of  Antioch  must  have, 
at  least,  as  much  right  to  primacy  (or  supremacy)  as  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  ;  for  tradition,  which  speaks  of  St.  Peter 
as  first  Bishop  of  Rome,  speaks  of  him  no  less  clearly  as 
Bishop  of  Antioch  before  he  became  Bishop  of  Rome. 

And  I  may  add,  that  the  See  of  Alexandria  claimed 
(as  did  Rome  and  Antioch)  succession  from  St.  Peter, 
through  St.  Mark.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  expressly  re- 
cognised this  co-ordinate  claim  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  ; 
and  when  addressed  by  a  Bishop  of  Alexandria  (jealous  of 
the  encroachments  of  the  'New  Rome'  on  the  Bosporus) 
as  being  the  true  '  Universal  Bishop,'  he  peremptorily  re- 
fused such  a  title,  and  declared  that  any  one  who  presumed 
to  put  forward  such  pretensions  would,  in  so  doing,  mark 
himself  02it  as  Antickrisi. 

Petrus,  or  Peter,  distinguished  from  '  Petral  the  Rock. 

But  it  is  time  now  that  we  proceed  to  other  monuments 
which  yet  await  our  consideration. 

And,  first,  I  would  refer  to  an  interesting  example  of 
the  way  in  which  ancient  monuments  serve  to  Illustrate 
ancient  literature,  and  to  confirm  the  conclusions  to  which 
that  literature  points.  I  need  not  do  more  than  remind 
those  present  that,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  the  early 
Fathers  are  almost  unanimous  in  interpreting  the  '  Rock '  of 
Matt.  xvl.  1 8,  not  of  Peter  personally,  but  either  of  Christ, 
the  true  Rock,  on  whom  the  Church  is  built  up,  or  of  the 
faith  in  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,   which   Peter  had  pro- 

G 


82  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

fessed.  The  letters  of  Pauliniis,  Bishop  of  Nola  (late  in 
the  fourth,  or  early  in  the  fifth,  century),  describe  the  mosaic 
decorations  of  his  own  churches  ;  and  by  comparing  his 
descriptions  of  those  mosaics  with  actually  existing  works 
of  art  (mosaics  and  sarcophagi),  dating  from  the  time  at 
which  he  wrote,  we  find  that  a  prevailing  type  for  the  de- 
signation of  our  Lord  was  one  of  symbolic  rather  than  of 
direct  representation.  He  was  represented,  for  example, 
in  the  '  Apse '  of  Paulinus'  Church  under  the  figure  of  a 
Lamb,  standing  upon  a  rock,  from  which  rock  flowed  four 
streams.  This  rock  is,  to  Roman  archaeologists  always  (as 
far  as  I  have  observed),  a  '  mountain,'  not  a  rock  ;  and  to  it, 
and  the  four  streams  thence  flowing,  they  give  various  in- 
terpretations according  to  circumstances.  '  Mount  Zion,  and 
the  four  streams  ivhichflozo  thci'cfrom  ;  '  the  four  rivers  of 
Paradise  flowing  from  the  mountain,  zvhich  designates  the 
Chui'ch  ;  '  the  foiir  streams,  which  issue  from  that  one  head 
of  waters,  over  zvhich  Peter  presides  ;*  such  are  a  few  among 
the  many  interpretations  that  we  meet  with.  But  among 
all  modern  Roman  controversialists  I  have  never  found 
any  (and  I  should  be  greatly  surprised  to  hear  that  any 
could  be  found)  who  gives  the  interpretation  which  Paulinus 
himself  furnishes  in  his  '  Epistola  xii.  ad  Severum.'  In  that 
letter,  describing  a  church  which  he  had  himself  built  and 
decorated,  he  says,  '  that  in  the  Apse  (whether  to  be  spelt 
Absis  or  Apsis  he  professes  himself  unable  to  say)  there 
was  a  camera  musico  illusa,  a  vaulted  roof,  decorated 
with  mosaics,  and  under  this  mosaic  picture  (evidently  in 
three  compartments,  corresponding  to  the  "  trichora  "  of  the 

*  So  Dr.  Northcote. 


ST.   PETERS  CHAIR,  83 

east  end  of  his  church)  the  following  descriptive  lines.'  [I 
omit  the  two  first  sets  of  verses,  not  immediately  to  our 
present  purpose.] 

'■  Regnum  d  triiDiiphinn  purpura  d  pa  I  ma  indicant: 
Petram  superstat  ipse  Petra  Ecdesice, 
Ex  qua  sonori  quattiior  fontes  mea7if, 
PvangelistiE,  viva   Christi  flumina.^  * 

The  '  Lamb,  standing  upon  a  rock '  of  the  mosaic 
picture,  is  in  the  descriptive  verse  Christ  Himself,  the  Rock 
of  the  Church,  standing  upon  a  rock  ;  and  the  four  voiceful 
springs  thence  flowing  are  the  four  Evangelists,  the  living 
streams  of  Christ. 

St.  Peter  as  the  '  Moses '  of  the  Nezv  Covcnaiit,  and 
St.  Peter  s  Chair. 

In  Dr.  Northcote's  '  Roma  Sotteranea,'  a  work  already- 
noticed  at  some  length  in  the  earlier  pages  of  this  volume, 
we  have  the  advantage  of  seeing  an  epitome  of  all  that  the 
most  learned  Roman  archaeologists  (and  some  of  them  are 
men  of  very  great  learning)  have  collected  from  the  whole 
field  of  antiquity,  in  relation  to  the  controverted  questions 
which  most  concern  the  Roman  Church.  And  I  cannot 
help  thinking  it  a  very  remarkable  fact,  that  all  the  erudition 
of  Padre  Garrucci,  the  exact  scholarship  and  unrivalled 
archaeological  knowledge  of  De  Rossi,  the  patient  and 
laborious  investigations  of  Cardinal  Pitra,  should  have  found 

*  '  The  Purple  and  the  Pahii  are  and  from  this  go  forth  four  voiceful 

signs  of  royal  estate  and  of  triumph.  streams.  Evangelists,  the  living  Ri- 

Standing  upon  a  rock  is  He  who  is  vers  of  Christ.' 
Himself  the   Rock  of  the  Church  ; 


84  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

SO  little  in  the  field  of  really  primitive  antiquity  (in  the  first 
four,  or  even  five,  centuries)  which  will  serve  in  any  degree 
for  an  even  seemingly  solid  basis  on  which  to  rest  the 
pretensions  of  the  Roman  See,  or  to  vindicate  for  Roman 
doctrine,  such  as  it  has  now  become,  the  suffrages  of  the 
great  teachers  of  the  Church  in  East  and  West  before  the 
decay  of  primitive  learning. 

Some  evidence,  however,  in  the  field  of  archaeology  they 
have  alleged  in  reference  to  the  question  now  under  dis- 
cussion, and  that  of  a  kind  which,  to  any  who  may  not 
have  made  these  questions  a  subject  of  special  study,  will 
probably  appear  at  first  sight  entitled  to  serious  consider- 
ation. 

On  fragments  of  ornamented  glass  (of  uncertain  date, 
and  of  uncertain  locality,  most  of  them),  and  on  sarcophagi, 
or  sculptured  stone  coffins,  chiefly  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  cen- 
turies, we  find,  here  and  there,  representations  of  St.  Peter, 
with  attributes  which  were  evidently  designed  to  indicate  a 
special  pre-eminence  in  him  as  compared  with  the  rest  of 
the  Apostolic  body.  Such,  for  example,  are  two  ornamented 
glasses*  now  in  the  Vatican,  in  which  a  figure,  which  we. 
should  naturally  have  interpreted  as  Moses  striking  the 
rock  in  the  desert,  is  identified  with  St.  Peter  by  the  word 
Petrvs  inscribed  beside  him  ;  and  again,  in  the  sarcophagi 
of  which  I  speak,  there  is  this  marked  difference  between 
the  Christian  sculptures  there  seen,  and  those  of  the  frescoes 
in  the  catacombs,  of  which  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  speak,  that    in   many  of  the  sarcophagi    St.    Peter  t   is 

*  Figured  by  Northcote,   R.   S.,  t  See  the  engravings  of  these  sar- 

Pl.  xvii.  As  to  the  date  of  these  cophagi  in  Bosio  and  Aringhi  R.  S. 
glasses,  see  note  p.    i6.  As  regards  St.  Peter  they  give  the 


ST.   TETERS  CHAIR. 


85 


singled  out  for  representation  by  unmistakable  allusions 
(such  as  the  cock  crowing  beside  him) ;  and  in  one  or  two, 
to  Jiiin  alone  among  the  Apostles,  and  in  common  only  with 
our  Lord,  is  assigned  the  '  virga  potestatis,'  the  rod  or 
staff,  symbolical  oi  power. ^ 

Nor  is  this  all.  This  idea  of  St.  Peter  being  the  Moses 
of  the  New  Covenant,  occupying  a  place  towards  God's 
people  under  the  New  Dispensation  like  to  that  of  Moses 
under  the  old — this  idea  finds  support,  not  in  the  language 
of  Bishops  of  Rome,  in  whose  mouth  it  would  carry  little 
weight,  as  being  alleged  in  support  of  their  own  claims,  but 
in  that  of  an  Egyptian  monkt  and  Presbyter,  in  no  way 
interested  {so  many  ivonld  suppose)  in  supporting  any  special 
claim  to  pre-eminence  on  the  part  of  St.  Peter. 


following  results  :  —  He  is  repre- 
sented together  with  St.  Paul  six 
times  (but  of  these  some  are  open 
to  doubt) ;  in  the  scene  of  the  De- 
nial (symbolised  by  the  cock  crow- 
ing), five  times  ;  his  arrest,  six  times 
(one  or  two  of  these  doubtful)  ;  as 
holding  the  rod  of  power,  once. 
The  contrast  here  presented  with 
the  older  representations  of  the 
'  Scriptural  cycle  '  in  the  Catacombs 
(in  none  of  which  is  St.  Peter  spe- 
cially designated)  is  very  significant. 

*  Northcote,  R.  S.,  PI.  xix.  ;  Bo- 
sio,  R.  S.,  p.  295. 

f  St.  Macarius  of  Egypt,  circ.  391 
A.D.  In  his  tenth  Homily  he  writes  : 
— '  In  the  times  gone  by,  Moses 
and  Aaron,  having  the  priestly  office 
(T^v  lepwcTvyriv  e^ojtec),  endured 
many  troubles.     But  Caiaphas  occu- 


pying their  seat  (i:a6ecpa,  or  seat 
of  authority,  comp.  Matt,  xxiii.  2), 
himself  persecuted  and  condemned 
the  Lord.  Yet  did  our  Lord,  out 
of  honour  to  the  priesthood  (/.  c.  to 
the  priestly  office  of  Caiaphas),  suffer 
it  to  be  done  [according  to  his  word]. 
In  like  manner  the  prophets  were 
persecuted  by  the  Jewish  people. 
Afterward  Peter  succeeded  Moses, 
having  had  entrusted  to  him  the  new 
Church  of  Christ  [in  contrast  this 
to  the  old  Church  that  was  in  the 
wilderness]  and  the  true  priesthood. 
For  now  there  is  a  baptism  of  fire 
and  of  Spirit  [in  contrast  to  the  bap- 
tism in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea 
"  unto  Moses  "],  and  a  circumcision 
which  is  wTOught  in  the  heart.'  [S. 
Macarii  ^gyptii  Homili^e,  ed.  J.  G. 
Pritius,  Lipsije,  i2mo.  1693.] 


86  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

All  this  sounds  very  Roman  indeed  to  our  ears  when 
we  first  hear  of  it.  But  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  exactly  what 
any  one  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  two  Sees  of 
Rome  and  of  Alexandria  would  have  expected  antecedently 
to  find,  in  monuments,  whether  of  art  or  of  literature,  dating 
from  tJic  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  And  the  wonder  is, 
not  that  two  or  three  isolated  facts  such  as  these  can  be 
alleged,  but  that  •  much  more  of  like  kind  has  not  been 
discovered. 

The  explanation  of  the  facts  now  alleged,  and  of  much 
that  would  otherwise  be  inexplicable  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  from  the  fourth  century  onwards,  is  this.  When,  at 
Nicaea,  in  the  year  325  a.d.,  the  whole  Church,  both 
Eastern,  Greek,  and  Latin,  met  together  in  representation, 
for  the  first  time,  at  a  General  Council,  and  met  again,  some 
fifty  years  later,  at  Constantinople,  questions  of  precedence 
and  of  privilege  between  the  various  '  Apostolic  Sees ' 
naturally  arose,  which  it  was  necessary  to  settle.  Constanti- 
nople, the  '  New  Rome,'  had  no  claims  whatever  on  ground 
of  antiquity,  or  of  Apostolic  foundation,  to  take  rank  even  on 
the  same  level  with,  far  less  to  take  precedence  of,  the  ancient 
Apostolic  Sees  —  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Ephesus. 
But  if  weight  and  importance  in  the  Christian  world,  as 
it  then  zvas,  were  to  be  considered,  as  well  as  prescriptive 
dignity,  there  were  two  great  cities  which  held  first  place 
in  the  whole  Roman  world  (the  olx,ov^ivri),  to  which  as  the 
seats  of  empire,  in  East  and  West  respectively,  it  was  natural 
for  a  Council,  held  under  Imperial  auspices,  to  assign  first 
place  of  precedence  in  the  united  Councils  of  the  Church. 
Rome,  as  ennobled  by  the  blood  of  Apostles,  and  being  one 
of  the  Apostolic  Sees,  had  a  higher  title  to  precedence  in 


ST.   PETER  S  CHAIR. 


87 


the  eyes  of  Churchmen  than  any  Imperial  dignity  could 
bestow;  but  had  the  advantage  of  combining  both  Imperial 
and  Ecclesiastical  claims.  And  she,  therefore,  clung  to  the 
style  of  '  Apostolic  See,'  which,  by  degrees,  became  '  T/ie 
Apostolic  See ;'  while  Constantinople,  whose  claim  to  pre- 
cedence, when  first  advanced,  was  really  that  of  her  Impa'ial 
position  in  the  Roman  olzovyAurj,  assumed  after  a  while  the 
title  of  the  '  Ecumenic  See,' — a  name  which,  when  its  true 
import  was,  ere  long,  forgotten,  became  a  source  of  bitter 
strife  between  that  Church  on  the  one  hand,  and  Rome 
on  the  other,  Rome  being  siippo7'tcd  by  those  other  Apostolic 
Sees  which  Constantinople  had  displaced* 

Bearing  all  these  circumstances  in  mind  we  shall  better 
understand  the  language  of  the  famous  Canons  of  the  first 
and  the  second  General  Councils  (Nicrea,  325,  and  Con- 
stantinople, 381  A.D.).  In  the  first  of  these  the  ancient 
Metropolitan  (and  Apostolic)  Sees  were  recognised  in  the 

*  This  is  well  illustrated  by  a  aught  of  that  dignity  which  she  at- 
letter  of  St.  Leo's  (Bishop  of  Rome  tained  through  the  holy  Evangelist 
from  440  to  461),  written  in  refer-  Mark,  the  disciple  of  blessed  Peter. 
ence  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  And  let  Antioch,  too,  maintain  the 
and  its  Canons.  He  makes  it  mat-  rank  which  by  the  Fathers  was  as- 
ter of  complaint  that  the  See  of  signed  to  her  {in  paterme  co7istitu- 
Alexandria  should  have  lost  her  pri-  t  ion  is  or  dine  perseveret).  [Quoted 
vilege  of  second  place  {secundi  ho-  by  Dupin,  '  De  A.  E.  D.,'  Dissert. 
noris  privilegiiini),  and  the  Church  iv.]  This  standing  alliance  between 
of  Antioch  her  dignity  as  the  third  Rome  and  the  displaced  Sees  of  Alex- 
See  in  Christendom.  He  adds: —  andria  and  Antioch,  is  perhaps  the 
'  Let  not  the  rights  appertaining  to  true  explanation  of  a  fact  which  has 
Provincial  Primacy  be  violently  been  the  puzzle  of  Roman  anliqua- 
done  away ;  nor  the  Metropolitan  ries  and  Ritualists,  viz.  that  at  Rome 
Bishops  be  defrauded  of  the  privi-  was  celebrated,  for  many  centuries, 
leges  that  of  old  were  established.  the  Festival  of  the  See  of  St.  Peter 
Let  not  the  See  of  Alexandria  lose  (Cathedra  Petri)  at  Antioch. 


88  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

following  terms  (Canon  Nic.  vi.), — '  Let  the  ancient  customs 
hold  in  Egypt,  and  Libya,  and  Pentapolis,  so  that  the 
Bishop  of  Alexandria  have  authority  (k^ovaiccv — jurisdiction) 
over  all  these ;  seeing  that  to  the  Bishop  also  that  is  in 
Rome  this*  is  of  established  custom.  Li  like  manner, 
also,  in  Antioch,  and  in  the  other  [eparchies]  provinces,  the 
privileges  of  the  several  churches  shall  be  preserved.' 

Ta  a^yjucc  \&ri  zpocnircj,  ra  h  KlyvTrco  kou  A//36y  zocl  Ylzvra- 
•TTokzi^  axTTZ  rov  ' AXs^ccv'hgziug  STrtaKOTov  vavrcov  rovrcov  sy^siv  r^v 
lc,ov(riocv'  iTTZihyj  za,]  rto  Iv  t?}  VojiJjrj  I'Tricrico'Troo  rovro  avjridzg  lariV 
6[jjOicog  ^s  KKi  pccira  rrjv  ^  Kvrioyjiiav  zai  h  rcdg  aWaig  iTa^yJotig  ra 
x^£<7|3£?a  Gco^sadui  Tccjg  IzzXT^aicctc'  Ka0oXou  ^s  'Troo'hrjkov  IziivOy  on 
Bi  rig  Xf^^ig  yvoo^jrig  rov  ^i^rPO'jro'kirov  yivoiro  liridKO'Trog  rov  roiovrov 
rj  (/jsyccX}^  (Tvvo'hog  S^ktz  (irj  ^s7i>  uvcci  I'TviGTCO'Trov. 

Such  was  the  lanofuaee  of  the  Church  in  her  first 
General  Council.  Little  more  than  fifty  years  afterwards, 
the  following  new  arrangement  was  made,  having  reference, 
evidently,  to  changes  which  had  been  brought  about,  and 
to  dangers  which  had  been  experienced,  in  the  meanwhile. 
The  Second  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople  is  as 
follows  :  '  Bishops  having  metropolitan  jiL^Hsdictioii  {rovg 
y-^g^  hoizTjtjiv  I'TTidKOTTovg)  shall  not  interfere  with  Churches 
beyond  their  ozvn  border,  nor  bring  confusion  upon  the 
Churches! 

*  'This,'  /.  ^.  jurisdiction  such  as  2.  Tuscia  et  Umbria ;  3.   Picenum 

this  over  the  comprovincial  Churches,  suburbicarium ;  4.  Sicilia;  5.  ApuHa 

'  the  Ecclesise  Suburbicarite,'  as  they  et  Calabria  ;  6.   Bruttii  et  Lucahia  ; 

were  called  {subiirbicaria  loca  in  the  7.  Samnium ;   8.  Sardinia  ;   9.   Cor- 

versio  Prisca  of  the  Nicene  Canon).  sicaj  10.  Valeria.     [See  the  autho- 

These  Churches  were  those  of  the  rities    for  this  in  Gieseler's    '  Ecc. 

ten  provinces  comprised  within  the  Hist.'  vol.  i.  p.  431,  note  3.] 
Dioecesis  Romre;  viz.  i.  Campania; 


ST.  Peter's  chair.  89 

Then,  after  mention  of  Alexandria,  the  '  East '  {i.e. 
the  DIoecesis  Orientis)  with  Antioch  as  its  head,  '  the 
Dioceses '  of  Asia,  of  Thrace,  and  after  reference  to  the 
Canons  of  Nicsea  already  quoted,  the  Third  Canon  adds  : 
*  Yet  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  shall  have  precedence  of 
honour  (rcc '^^s(t(5&7cc  T?jg  ri^TJg)  next  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome ^ 
because  of  its  being  Nezu  Rome! 

Exactly  seventy  years  after  this,  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (a.d.  451),  being  the  fourth  General  Council,  a 
yet  further  step  in  advance  was  made  good  by  the  Imperial 
or  'Ecumenical'  See,  when  (ib-a  'x^ia^ua)  equality  of  privilege 
and  honour  was  decreed  to  the  two  Sees  of  Rome  and 
Constantinople  ;  yet  with  a  concession  of  '  priority '  to  the 
older  See.* 

I  have  been  makine  a  lonof  digression,  but  thus  much 
was  necessary  in  order  to  explain  why  it  was  that  in  the 
divisions  by  which  the  Eastern  Churches  were  rent  asunder, 
the  see  of  Alexandria  is  constantly  found  in  deadly  feud 
with  that  of  Constantinople,  and  as  constantly  appealing, 
not  without  effect,  to  '  Old  Rome '  for  succour  against  her 
foe ;  and  again  how  it  is  that  at  Alexandria  {deriving 
Apostolical  foundation  from  Peter  through  St.  Mark)  there 
is  to  be  traced  something  of  the  same  exaltation  of  St. 
Peter's  privileges  as  at  Rome  itself 

I  may  add  further,  that  we  have  clear  evidence  to  show 
that  the  language  of  the  Nicene  Canon  (quoted  above, 
p.  86)  was  far  from  satisfying  the  ideas  which  the  Roman 
Church  even  then  entertained  of  their  own  right  to  a 
'primacy'  of  honour  and  privilege.      They  put  their  own 

*  For  fuller  details  concerning  the  Councils,  see  Appendix  (D). 


90  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

interpretation  upon  that  Canon,  and  in  their  own  Latin 
version  headed  the  Canon  itself  with  the  superscription, 
or  perhaps  the  marginal  annotation,  '  Ecclesia  Romana  semper 
habiiit  prhnatuml  or  '  De  priniatu  Romance  Ecclesics! 
Before  long,  however,  the  Roman  Canonists,  having  nothing 
but  their  Latin  version  of  the  Canons  to  refer  to,  came  to 
think  this  inscription  to  be  a  part  of  the  actual  Canon  of 
Nicxa  itself,  and  as  such  quoted  it,  both  in  controversy 
with  the  African  Churches,  and  afterwards  at  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  in  support  of  the  Roman  claims. 

This  falsification  (which  was  probably  quite  unconscious 
in  the  first  instance,  the  result  of  ignorance  not  of  deliberate 
fraud,  like  many  of  the  other  falsifications  with  which  the 
history  of  the  Roman  See  abounds)  was  of  course  at  once 
exposed  at  Chalcedon  by  the  production  of  the  genuine 
acts.  But  what,  for  our  present  purpose,  it  is  of  importance 
to  note,  is,  that  from  the  time  of  the  first  Council  of  Nicsea 
onwards,  the  Church  of  Rome  was  thrown  on  her  defence, 
as  it  were,  with  regard  to  the  position  of  primacy  which 
she  claimed,  so  that  *  Peter,'  and  the  '  succession  from 
Peter,'  would  be  constantly  in  the  mouth  of  her  Canonists — 
more  particularly  after  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  and 
when  the  seat  of  Empire  had  been  completely  transferred 
to  Constantinople. 

These  things  being  so,  we  see  at  once  the  reason 
why,  at  Rome  itself,  in  the  glass  cups,  which  on  other 
grounds  we  have  had  reason  to  assign  (many  of  them  at 
least)  to  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  (some  few  of  them 
perhaps  to  the  sixth),  we  should  find  Peter  occupying  a 
very  different  position  to  any  that  was  assigned  to  him 
in    the    earlier    '  Biblical    Cycle '    (dating   from    before    the 


ST.   PETKRS  CHAIR.  9  I 

conversion  of  Constantine)  :  and  why  similar  '  Petrine ' 
developments  are  manifest  in  the  sarcophagi,  which  are 
also,  with  few  exceptions,  to  be  assigned  to  the  same 
period  as  these  ornamented  glasses.* 

Bearing  these  things  in  mind  we  shall  see,  that  the 
very  few  facts  of  archaeology  which  Roman  writers  (as  e.g. 
Dr.  Northcote)  can  allege  in  support  of  Roman  claims, 
amount  to  nothing  more  than  proofs  of  what  was  already 
notorious,  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  from  the  fourth  century 
onward  (even  in  the  third  we  have  traces  of  the  same 
feeling)  ^contended,'  to  use  the  words  of  Firmilianus,  that 
they  had  succession  from  Peter,  and  tried  to  found  a  claim 
thereupon,  first  to  primacy  and  afterward,  as  time  went  on, 
to  supremacy  in  the  Church.  How  utterly  inconsistent 
with  Roman  ideas  of  supremacy  by  Divine  right  over  the 
whole  Church,  is  the  language  of  those  General  Councils 
which  I  have  quoted,  I  need  scarcely  be  at  pains  to  point 
out. 

There  is  yet  another  matter  to  which  great  importance 
has  been  attached  by  some  Roman  Catholic  writers,  viz., 
the  question  of  the  antiquity  or  otherwise  of  the  so-called 
'  chair  of  St.  Peter,'  preserved  with  great  veneration  at 
Rome.  I  will  not  enter  upon  the  question  at  length, 
because  now  that  the  facts  are  ascertained  (by  the  removal 
of  its  bronze  covering,  at  the  Pope's  orders,  in  1867),  it  is 
found  to  involve  matter  of  purely  archaeological  interest. 
It    is    not  an    Episcopal  '  throne '  or  '  Cathedra,'  such,    for 


*  I  adopt  here,  as  probably  the      has  suggested,    '  De  Antiq.   Eccles. 
true  explanation  of  this  falsification,      Discip.'  Dissert,  iv.  p.  325. 
what  the   learned  Gallican,   Dupin, 


92  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

example,  as  that  assigned  to  St.  Paul  in  the  Diptych 
already  figured,  or  in  other  early  ecclesiastical  monuments, 
but  is  a  sella  gestatoria,  a  kind  of  portable  arm-chair,  such 
as  was  used  in  old  times  as  a  mark  of  dignity  by  Roman 
Senators. 

The  original  oak  chair  is  very  ancient,  and  it  is  adorned 
with  ivory  plates  representing  the  labours  of  Hercules, 
If  this  be,  as  Roman  archaeologists  contend,  the  material 
Cathedra  Petri  sometimes  referred  to  by  ancient  authors  (in 
some  we  read  of  a  '  sella  gestatoria '),  the  conclusion  would 
be  one  singularly  in  accordance  with  the  view  maintained 
throughout  in  this  paper,  viz.,  that  the  'Cathedra'  or 
Apostolic  See  (Sedes  Apostolica)  at  Rome  was  really  St. 
Paul's  rather  than  St.  Peter's.  For  in  existing  monuments 
we  should  have  one  (that  lithographed  above,  PL  iv.)  show- 
ing St.  Paul  seated  on  an  Apostolic  throne,  in  the  act  of 
Benediction,  and  another,  this  much -talked -of  'Chair  of 
St.  Peter'  proving  to  be  (even  if  genuine)  nothing  more 
than  a  Senator's  chair  (a  kind  of  sedan-chair)  suited  for 
out-door  use.* 

*  A  kind  of  fatality  seems  to  at-  qua   scderat  ipse,    locatum    Maxima 

tend  upon  Dr.  Northcote  and  his  Roma  Linum p^'imum  considerejjissit. 

co-editor  as  soon  as  they  attempt  to  Mr.  B.,with  a  disregard  of  quantity, 

make   controversial  use  of  the  ar-  of  grammar,  and  of  lexicography, 

chaeological  facts  before  them.     Mr.  which  is  quite  Pontifical  (see  above, 

Brownlow,  who  writes  a  Dissertation  p.  46),  renders  these  words,  '  In  this 

on  this  Chair  of  St.   Peter,  quotes  Chair,  in  which  Peter  himself  had 

two  lines  from  a  Poem  against  Mar-  sat,  he  07'dained  Linus  first  to  sit  with 

cion,  'usually  appended  to  the  works  him  \as  Bishop^  established  in  Great 

of  I'ertuUian,  and  which  from  inter-  Rome.'     What  will  De  Rossi  say  of 

nal  evidence  clearly  belongs  to  the  such    scholarship    as   this,    on   the 

third  century.'   Hac  Cathedra,  Petrus  part  of  his  English  representative? 


SC.S,  CORl^ELmS    PAPA    AWO    S.C.S.  CLfrxi^.K^_. 
A  Yresco (8'^Centary) aJ.Rome frornDeUossi s  Roma Sotterrar.ea. 


FRESCO  OF  CORNELIUS  PAPA  AND  ST.   CYPRIAN.  93 


The  Fresco  of  Cor?ielhis  Papa  and  Si.  Cyprian. 

Quitting  now  this  portion  of  my  subject,  I  will  ask  your 
attention  in  the  next  place  to  another  monument,  of 
considerably  later  date,  which  I  have  had  lithographed  for 
the  illustration  of  this  paper. 

Its  outward  appearance  I  need  not  describe,  for  you 
can  judge  of  this  yourselves.  I  have  only  therefore  to  state 
its  history,  and  point  out  its  subject.  Its  significance  in 
reference  to  our  present  question  will  then  be  readily 
appreciated,  without  any  detailed  comment  on  my  part. 

The  personages  represented  are  St.  Cornelius,  '  Pope 
of  Rome,'  and  his  contemporary  St.  Cyprian  '  Pope  of 
Carthage.'  I  use  these  terms  advisedly,  as  being  at  once 
historical  and  monumental.  The  first  term,  Papa  Romanvs, 
was  used  officially  even  at  Rome  itself,  as  late  as  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century.  In  the  companion  picture  to 
this  for  example  ['  Vestiarium  Christianum,'  PI.  xxxi. 
representing  S.  Xystvs  of  Rome,  and  a  Bishop  (probably 
'  Optatus ')  of  some  other  See],  this  very  title  of  Papa 
Romanus '"'  is  employed.      And  for  other  Sees  I  need  hardly 

*  The  word    Papa    (in   some    of  Christ.'  t.  i.  p.  cxv.)     St.  Perpetua, 

the   earUest    inscriptions  Pappa   or  in  the  Acts  of  her  Martyrdom,  ad- 

Pappas)  was  originally  a  term  of  af-  dresses  Bishop  Optatus  in  the  words 

fection,   equivalent  to  Father.      So  '  Tu  es papa  noster.'   (Ruinart.  'Acta 

Furius  Dionisius  Filocalus,  an  artist  sincera,'  ed.  Paris,  p.  92.)     And  in 

employed   by   Damasus    {sed.   366-  like  manner  both  St.  Urbanus,  Bp. 

384),    speaks    of  himself  as   being  of  Rome    (Laderchi   'Acta  S.  Cae- 

Damasi  stii  Pappce  alitor  atque  ama-  cilige,'  t.  i.  p.   12),  and  St.  Antony, 

tor.      In    another    inscription    (the  who  was  but  a  Presbyter  (Mabillon, 

Deacon  Severus)  we  read  of  Papa  '  Analecta,'  t.  iv.  p.  104),  were  both 

siiiis  Marcelliniis.    (De  Rossi,  '  Insc.  known  to  their  own  flock  as  '  Papa 


94  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

remind  you,  that  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  were  as 
commonly  designated  by  this  title  as  the  Patriarchs  of 
Rome  ;  and  that  the  same  word  '  Papa '  was  frequently 
used  in  reference  to  Bishops  of  other  less  important  Sees, 
as  those  of  Carthage,  Rheims,  Lyons,  and  others. 

But  while  the  personages  represented  in  the  fresco 
before  you  are  Bishops  of  the  third  century,  the  fresco 
itself  (on  the  walls  of  the  '  Catacomb '  or  cemetery  of 
St.  Callistus)  dates*  from  the  time  of  Leo  IIL,  the  close  of 
the  eighth  or  early  in  the  ninth  century.  I  may  note 
further,  that  the  picture  appears  to  have  been  a  restoration, 
or  rather  if  I  may  use  the  term,  a  palimpsest — traces  of  still 
earlier  frescoes  (probably  of  the  same  subject)  being  found 
by  De  Rossi  under  these,  which  he  himself  discovered  only 
a  few  years  ago.  And  with  these  few  facts  premised,  I 
need  only  ask  you  further  to  observe,  as  bearing  upon  our 
present  subject,  that  there  being  four  Bishops  represented 
in  the  two  frescoes  ('  Vest.  Christ.'  Pll.  xxx.  and  xxxi.),  of 
whom  two  are  Bishops  of  Rome,  one  a  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
and  the  fourth  a  Bishop  of  some  unknown  See  other\  than 
Rome,  precisely  the  same  costtcme  and  insignia  are  atti'ibttted 
to  all  the  fonr.  In  the  monument  before  us,  buried  as  it 
was  beneath  the  ground  for  a  thousand  years,  discovered 

suns'     (Quoted  by  De  Rossi,  R.  S.  by  De  Rossi,  and,  as  I  believe,  now 

t.   ii.   p.   200.)     St.   Germanus,    Pa-  commonly  received, 

triarch    of  Constantinople    (eighth  f  The  first  letter  of  his  name  [O] 

century),  speaks  of  Leo  and  of  Vi-  remains  on  the  fresco,  and  this,  as 

gilius  as  being  '  Popes  of  Rome'  ex-  De  Rossi  observed,  is  sufficient  to 

actly   as   does   the   fresco    here    in  show  that  it  is  not  a  Bishop  of  Rome ; 

question.     (Scti.    Germani,  etc.,  de  for  no  Bishop  of  Rome,  from  first 

Sanctis  Synodis,  ap.  A.  Mai,  Spicil.)  to  last,  has  borne  a  name  of  which 

*  I  adopt  the  opinion  advocated  O  was  the  first  letter. 


MOSAICS  OF  THE  TRICLINIUM  LATERANUM.  95 

by  a  Roman  archaeologist,  published  to  the  world  under  the 
auspices  of  the  present  Pope,  as  one  of  the  first-fruits  of 
the  Cromolitografia  Pontificia,  we  find  preserved  to  us  the 
record  of  a  time,  when,  neither  by  title*  nor  by  insignia, 
were  Bishops  of  Rome  distinguished  from  other  Bishops, 
even  when  figured,  as  are  these  four,  in  a  place  of  burial 
especially  appropriated  to  the  occupants  of  the  Roman 
See. 

Mosaics  of  the  Triclinium  Latermmm. 

The  series  of  Monuments  figured  next  in  order  to  that 
last  described,  are  of  the  same,  or  all  but  the  same,  date  as 
the  last,  in  point  of  actual  execution.  But  in  another  point 
of  view  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  them.  For  that 
last  reproduced  the  ideas  (probably  also  reproduced,  with 
slight  changes  only,  the  actual  artistic  work)  proper  to 
four  or  five  centuries  before.  But  these  that  we  now 
see,  are  a  genuine  embodiment  of  the  ideas  concerning 
'  Church  and  State,'  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  power, 
which  prevailed  at  Rome  at  the  beginning  of  the  ninth 
century. 

In  the  woodcut  given  on  the  following  page,  I  have 
fortunately  been  able  to  reproduce  the  most  important  por- 

*  In   the    official    Cemetery    of  Maggiore :    Ciampini    '  Mon.    Vet.' 

Bishops  of  Rome  in  the  third  cen-  t.  i.   p.    203],   describes  himself  as 

tury,  we   find  such  inscriptions  as  Xvstvs    Episcopvs.       For    further 

these: — ANTEPWC  CnKo-^'OTroc)  particulars  see  '  Vest.  Christ.'  p.  218, 

KOPNHAIOC  €niCK,  and  the  note  448  ;  p.  92,  note  167  ;  and  for 

like.    And  so  Xystus  III.  {sed.  433-  the  title  '  Pontifex  Maximus,'  n.304, 

440),  in  an  inscription  put  up  by  p.  146. 
himself  [in  the  church  of  S.  Maria 


96 


SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 


tion    of  these   mosaics,  in  a  shape   more  authentic*  than 
any  in  which  it  has  been  pubHshed  hitherto. 

These  mosaics  were  originally  placed  on  the  walls  of  the 


Triclinium  Lateranum,  a  great  banqueting-hall  (used  also  as 
a   place  of  meeting  for  Roman  '  Lateran '  Councils)  which 


*  The  woodcut  here  given  is  from 
a  coloured  drawing  in  the  collection 
of  Vope  Clement  XL,  now  in  the 
Royal  Library  at  Windsor.  For  the 
history  of  these  mosaics  see  Nicolai 
Alemanni  De  Lateranensibus  Parie- 
tinis  Dissertatio  Historica,  Romse, 
4to.  1625.     To  the  eye  of  an  archae- 


ologist, one  little  matter  of  detail 
will  at  once  mark  out  I'oJ'e  Clemenfs 
version  (so  to  call  it)  as  the  true  one. 
The  pallium  worn  by  Leo  III.  is 
arranged  /;/  the  Greek  fashion  in  the 
genuine  picture,  but  after  a  later 
Roman  fashion  in  the  same  picture 
as  edited  by  Alemannus.    Note,  too, 


o 


en      n: 


MOSAICS  OF  THE  TRICLINIUM  LATERANUM.  97 

Leo  III.  built  about  the  time  of  the  Coronation  of 
Charlemagne.  Great  portion  of  the  building  was  restored 
later  in  the  same  century  by  Leo  IV. — a  small  portion  of 
the  walls,  and  fragments  (I  believe)  of  these  mosaics  are 
still  in  existence.  The  general  arrangement  of  the  whole 
apse  of  the  Triclinium  is  shown  in  'Vest.  Christ.'  PI.  xxxii.  ; 
the  two  most  important  groups,  as  represented  by  Ale- 
mannus,  in  PI.  vi.  of  this  volume,  and  one  of  these  again 
(containing  what  are  probably  contemporary  representations 
of  Leo  III.  and  Charlemagne)  in  the  woodcut  above.  The 
two  groups  of  which  I  speak  (PI.  vi.)  tell  their  own  tale. 
That  on  the  spectator  s  left  represents  our  Lord,  bestowing 
with  His  right  hand  the  keys  on  St.  Peter  (regarded  as 
representative  of  the  Roman  Church),  and  with  His  left 
giving  the  '  Vexillum,'  or  standard  of  empire,  to  Constantino. 
In  the  group  on  the  right  St.  Peter  occupies  the  place 
corresponding  to  that  of  our  Lord  in  the  other.  He  is 
depicted  (in  accordance  with  Roman  ideas  at  that  time)  as 
the  representative  through  whom,  under  Christ,  all  power, 
both  spiritual  and  temporal,  was  derived  to  the  Roman 
Church ;  but  whereas,  at  a  later  time,  we  shall  find  both 
these  powers  concentrated  in  the  person  of  the  Pope,  we 
have  here  their  division  recognised,  the  pallium,  as  the 
symbol  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  and  of  spiritual  power, 

that  this  last  editor  has  thought  it  each  restorer,  sometimes  each  editor, 
necessary  to  put  the  keys  on  the  lap  making  slight  but  significant  changes 
of  St.  Peter,  while  nothing  of  the  to  suit  the  ideas  prevailing  in  his 
kind  appears  in  the  other  drawing,  own  day ;  and  these  more  often  (I 
Of  additions,  such  as  this  last,  I  find  fully  believe)  through  inadvertence, 
conclusive  evidence  in  many  of  the  and  want  of  archaeological  know- 
Roman  monuments,  restored  as  they  ledge,  than  from  any  deliberate  or 
have  been  from  time  to  time  ;  and  conscious  misrepresentation. 

II 


98  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

he'mcr  bestowed  on  Leo  III.,  the  vexillum,  as  the  symbol 
of  Imperial  power,  bestowed  on  Charlemagne.  And  it  is  in 
accordance  with  this  distinction,  that  while  the  Emperor  is 
here  represented  as  wearing  the  diadciua  imperii,  or  Im- 
perial crown,  the  Pope  is  content  with  the  corona  sacerdotii^'' 
the  tonsure,  which  he  shared  in  common  with  other  Priests 
and  Bishops  of  his  time. 

Contrast  this  with  the  representations  of  a  Pope 
(Eugenius  IV.)  in  those  monuments  which  stand  last  in  the 
series  before  you  below  (Pll.  viii.  ix.),  and  you  will  see  at  a 
glance  how  rapid  were  the  developments  of  the  intervening 
centuries — how  wide  the  interval  which  separates  even  the 
successful  ambition  of  a  Leo  III.  from  the  unbounded 
pretensions  to  universal  sovereignty  in  things  temporal 
and  spiritual,  put  forth,  and  for  a  time  successfully,  by  the 
later  Popes,  and  now  being  claimed  once  more,  to  what 
result  God  knoweth,  and  God  alone,  by  Pius  IX.  and  the 
Roman  Curia. 

The  Donation  of  Constantinc. 

The  mention  of  this  marked  difference  between  the 
Papacy  of  even  Leo  III.  and  that  of  Hildebrand  and  the 
later  Popes,  leads  us  naturally  to  the  mention  of  that  won- 
derful instance  of  successful  forgery,  pregnant  with  results 
of  untold  importance  to  Europe,  the  false  Decretals,  which 

*  There  is  precisely  the  same  dis-  appear    together.      There    are    co- 

tinction  of  insignia  in  other  mosaics  loured    drawings    of  these    in    the 

(believed  by  Ciampinus  and  others  collection    of  Pope   Clement    XL, 

to  have  been  contemporary  pictures)  photographs  from  which  are  in  my 

in  which  Charlemagne  and  Leo  II L  i)Ossession. 


"M 


^ 


ft. 

3 

^, 

^ 
m 

u* 
^ 
-^ 

cs* 

> 

b» 

<^ 

K 

>s 

s 

pq 

B 

ft. 

o 

^ 

^ 

ffj 

X 
w 

« 

'■y^a^^Ti-^ 


\1 


o 

§ 

»-,  Si 


THE  DONATION  OF  CONSTANTINE.  99 

bridged  the  intervening  space.  I  have  succeeded  quite 
lately  in  finding,  what  I  believe  to  be  the  only  representation 
in  mediaeval  art  of  the  so-called  '  Donation  of  Constantine  ;' 
and  this  you  will  find  reproduced,  exactly  as  I  found  it, 
among  the  illustrations'"  before  you.  We  are  able  to  de- 
termine the  date  of  this  monument,  on  archaeological  grounds, 
with  certainty,  to  a  time  not  earlier  than  the  twelfth  century. 
The  form  of  the  mitres  in  the  '  Baptism  of  Constantine '  is 
alone  sufficient  to  determine  this. 

That  amonof  the  innumerable  monuments  of  Roman  art 
dating  from  the  fourth  century  onwards,  some  of  which,  as 
those  of  the  Triclinium  Lateranum  just  noticed,  have  direct 
reference  to  Constantine — that  among  these  no  reference 
whatever  should  have  been  made  to  a  transaction  so  mo- 
mentous, if  only  it  had  been  real — that  Anastasius  again, 
who  records  all  the  offerings  made  by  Constantine  to  the 
various  churches  in  Rome,  even  to  the  number  of  the 
pounds  weight  of  the  candlesticks  and  other  such  things  — 
that  he,  too,  should  know  nothing  of  this  'Donation' — these 
two  facts  would  alone  constitute  the  strongest  possible  evi- 
dence of  the  utterly  fabulous  character  of  the  whole  story,  even 
if  other  evidence  were  wanting.  A  work  lately  published,  t 
and  widely  circulated  both  in  this  country  and  on  the  Con- 
tinent, has  entered  so  fully  into  the  literary  history  of  the 
forged  Decretals,  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  enlarge 
upon  that  topic. 

I  pass  on,  therefore,  to  the  last  in  the  series  of  monu- 

*  This    Plate    (vii.)    is   an    exact  were  upon  the  '  zophoros,'  or  frieze, 

copy  of  that  given  by  Ciampinus  in  of  the  Lateran  Basihca. 

his   '  De   Sacris   ^dificiis,'   Tab.   ii.  f  '  Janus.' 
figg.  3.  4.      The  mosaics  in  (|ucstion 


lOO  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

ments  which  I  have  to  describe.  And  these,  as  they  are 
the  latest  in  date  of  those  here  figured,  so  are  they  also, 
to  the  shame  of  Western  Christendom  it  must  be  said,  a 
most  conspicuous  example  of  the  habitual,  and  in  this  case 
it  must  be  feared,  the  conscious  and  deliberate  misrepre- 
sentations, through  which,  from  the  fifth  century  down  to 
this  present  time,  the  pretensions  of  the  Roman  See  have 
been  maintained. 

The  Bassi  Relievi  from  the  Great  Gates  of  St.  Peter's 

AT  Rome. 

The  Popes  Supremacy,  temporal  and  spirihial. 

In  describing  these  monuments  I  will  first  state  briefly 
what  are  the  subjects  represented,  and  then  point  out,  as 
concisely  as  may  be,  the  gross  misrepresentations  of  histo- 
rical fact  which  are  there  embodied. 

These  four  plates,  then,  give  an  exact  picture  of  some  of 
the  principal  relievi  on  the  great  bronze  gates  of  St.  Peter's 
at  Rome.  Their  immediate  subjects  are  sufficiently  indi- 
cated by  the  titles  printed  under  each  —  of  one,  the  Coro- 
nation of  the  Emperor  Sigismund  ;  of  the  others,  the  prin- 
cipal events  of  the  Council  of  Florence  (previously  of 
Ferrara),  the  first  session  of  which  was  held  at  Ferrara  on 
Wednesday,  January  the  8th,  in  the  year  1438."'  And  the 
general  idea  which,  evidently,  it  was  intended  herein  to  set 
forth,  is  that  of  the  union  in  the  person  of  the  Pope,  as 
God's  vicegerent  upon  earth,  of  supreme  power,  both  tem- 
poral and  spirittial. 

\  *  Raynaldus,  e<l.  ann.  1438,  §  2. 


.it 


M 


■  Wi 


%^' 
.^j^^ 


pb 


P. 


■^' 


^^S^c? 0 


"n 


:^^£; 


.^^^ 


II 


"Z. 


ID 

>—      o 

^      c 
<; 


V 


Uh        o 

O      55 


■X 


I  1 


y 


C       ;3 


:  > 

2 

,     , 

n; 

,— . 

fi 

-— 

U 

■ 

\^ 

C  ) 

u 

o 

THE  CORONATION  OF  SIGISMUND.  IQI 


The  Coronation  of  Sigismund. 

His  supremacy  of  temporal  power  is  indicated  in  the 
scene  of  the  Coronation  of  Sigismund,  who  kneels  humbly, 
as  you  see,  at  the  Pope's  feet,  to  receive  at  his  hands  the 
Imperial  crown,  which  it  is  for  the  Pope  to  bestow  or  to 
withhold,  at  his  good  pleasure.  It  is  probable  that  this 
scene  may  not  incorrectly  represent'"  the  submissive  attitude 
to  which  the  German  Emperors  had  in  the  course  of  time 
been  reduced.  And  a  suggestive  contrast  for  the  ecclesi- 
astical historian  will  be  found,  in  comparing  the  scene  here 
represented  with  that  of  the  Coronation  of  Charlemagne  by 
Leo  III.,  as  described  by  contemporary  writers.  Onet  of 
these  tells  us  how,  at  the  time  of  the  coronation,  '  Carolus 
more  antiquorum  Principum,  a  Leone  Pontifice  adoratus 
fttit!  And  this  adorare,  though  we  are  not  to  suppose  with 
certain  moderns  that  it  expressed,  necessarily,  in  ancient 
times,  all  that  is  implied  in  our  own  word  to  '  adore,' \  does 
here  express  the  ceremonial  kiss  of  duty,  as  distinct  from 
the  mere  oscular i  of  brotherly  affection.  Another  old 
writer  (quoted  as  above  by  Alemannus)  has  exactly  hit  the 
meaning  of  the  term,  when,  versifying  the  words  I  have  just 
quoted,  he  says  :  — 


*  It    is   worth    noting,    however,  ating  at  the  coronation  of  a  King  of 

that  representations  such  as  these  France  ;  and  there  it  is  the  King 

vary  considerably,   according  to  the  who  sits,  while  the  Pope  stands. 

authority  from    which  they  proceed.  f  Auctor  Annal.  Franc,  apud  Ale- 

In  French  monuments,  executed,  I  mannum  de  Lateran.  Pariet.  p.  76. 

doubt  not,  under  other  than  Papal  %  See  further  on  this  word,  Appen- 

auspices,  a  Pope  may  be  seen  oftici-  dix  (A)  at  the  end  of  this  volume. 


I02  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

'  Post  laucles  igitur  dictas  et  summus  eundem 
Praesul  adoravit,  stent  mos  debitiis  oli/n 
J'ruidpibiis  fiiit  a  lit  i qui s.' 

A  '  Papa  Romanus,'  in  the  ninth  century,  thought  it  natural 
'  ado7^are,'  to  give  the  kiss  of  duly,  to  the  Emperor  whom  he 
had  just  anointed  and  crowned.  Three  centuries  later, 
Popes  had  learnt  to  require  from  Emperors  the  menial 
services  of  a  o-room. 


t> 


T/ie  Coitncil  of  Florence. 

But  I  must  not  linger  on  this  portion  of  my  subject,  but 
go  on  to  speak  of  the  other  monuments  relating  to  the 
Council  of  Florence. 

The  first  in  the  series  is  that  which  for  our  present  pur- 
pose is  of  chief  interest.  In  the  larger  portion  of  it,  that  on 
the  spectator  s  left,  we  see  the  transit  from  Constantinople 
to  Venice,  and  the  landing  of  the  Emperor  (who  wears  the 
xa,(j(,y]Xoivztov,  or  peculiar  shaded  helmet  of  the  Byzantine  Em- 
perors), and  of  the  Patriarch  Joseph,  who  is  seen,  in  man- 
dyas  and  cowl,  immediately  behind  the  Emperor.  In  this 
part  of  the  plate  there  is  nothing  to  call  for  special  remark. 
But  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive  a  greater  concen- 
tration of  direct  misrepresentation  of  fact,  within  two  or 
three  square  inches  of  space,  than  we  shall  find  in  the  small 
portion  of  this  plate  which  yet  remains  to  be  described. 

The  subject  here  represented  is  that  of  the  formal 
reception  by  the  Pope,  at  Ferrara,  of  the  Greek  Emperor 
and  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  And  if  we  had  no 
other  evidence  of  what  really  happened  than  that  which  is 
here  given  us  on  the  infallible  authority  of  Eugenius   IV, 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE.  IO3 

(if  anywhere  careful  of  exact  truth  we  might  well  suppose 
to  be  so  here,  in  a  matter  affecting  the  whole  constitution  of 
the  Church  and  of  the  Roman  See,  and  the  relations  of 
Eastern  and  Western  Christendom),  the  conclusion  we 
should  come  to  would  be  this.  We  should  suppose  (I  have 
only  to  appeal  oculis  fidelibiis  for  what  I  say)  that  the  Pope 
was  seated  on  his  throne,  wearing  the  triple  crown  of 
sovereignty  in  things  of  heaven,  things  of  earth,  and  things 
under  the  earth  —  that  the  Greek  Emperor  then  came 
humbly  into  his  presence,  that  he  left  his  own  Imperial 
crown  in  the  hands  of  an  attendant,  on  entering  the  presence 
chamber,  in  token  of  humility,  and  in  acknowledgment  of 
the  supreme  sovereignty  of  God's  earthly  Vicar — and 
then  bowed  himself  on  one  knee  at  the  Pope's  feet,  as 
though  to  sue  for  the  pledge  of  forgiveness,  which  the  Pope, 
without  rising  from  his  throne,  is  graciously  pleased  to 
bestow.  And  while  the  Emperor  thus  acknowledges  his 
superior  in  the  person  of  St.  Peter's  representative,  the 
Ecumenical  Patriarch,  as  Joseph  would  have  styled  himself, 
is  seen  in  attendance,  standing  humbly  and  expectantly,  at 
the  door  of  the  presence  chamber,  till  it  shall  please  the 
spiritual  monarch  of  the  world  to  notice  the  humble  Bishop 
who  awaits  his  pleasure. 

Such  is  the  picture  by  which  Antonio  Filarete  of 
Florence,  at  the  command  of  Eugenius  IV.,  has  perpetuated, 
in  unblushing  bronze,  the  fictions  of  which  an  infallible 
Pope  is  capable.  From  Roman  historians  of  the  time  (to 
say  nothing  now  of  the  Greeks),  we  have  full  details  of  what 
really  did  happen  on  the  occasions  referred  to  ;  and  these 
accounts  prove  conclusively  that  what  actually  occurred  was 
the  exact  opposite  of  what  is  here  represented,  and  that  in 


I04  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

every  particular,  from  first  to  last,  almost  without  a  single 
exception. 

What  actually  occurred  was  this.  The  Emperor  reached 
Ferrara  on  the  4th  of  March.  We  may  well  imagine  the 
endless  questions  of  ceremonial  etiquette  which  would  have 
arisen,  had  a  formal  reception  in  public  audience  been  given 
to  him  on  this  occasion  by  the  Pope.  And  it  would  seem 
from  the  conflicting  accounts  of  the  Latins  and  the  Greeks, 
that  the  diplomatists  on  either  side  must  have  come  to  the 
determination  of  avoiding  altogether  difficulties  which  they 
could  not  more  directly  surmount.  A  Roman  Cardinal 
(Andreas  a  Santa  Cruce)  wrote  as  follows  of  what  occurred  :''" 
'  On  the  4th  of  March  the  Greek  Emperor  entered  Ferrara 
with  a  large  train  on  horseback.  All  the  Cardinals  then  at 
Ferrara  went  to  meet  him,  outside  the  city,  accompanied  by 
a  large  body  of  Prelates.  The  Emperor  was  conducted 
under  a  golden  canopy  to  the  Apostolic  (Papal)  Palace,  and 
went  on  horseback  up  to  the  Pope's  chamber,  by  a  way 
which  had  been  made  in  the  Palace,  in  old  times,  by  the 
Marquises  of  Ferrara.  When  he  had  duly  paid  his  respects 
to  the  Pontiff  {exhibita  Romano  Pontifici  debita  t  revei^entia) 
he    was    conducted  in  similar  state  to  the    Palace  (known 


*  Raynaldi  Annal.  ad  ann.  1434.  both  in  these  matters  of  ceremony, 

No.  6.  and  in   matters   of  grave   doctrinal 

t  This  is   a   conveniently  vague  importance,  than  were  the  Patriarch 

term.     Roman  and  Greek  ideas  of  and  the  other  Greek  Bishops.     In 

the  amount  of  ceremonial  reverence  the  authentic  copy  of  the  final  De- 

to  be  shown  by  an  Emperor  to  a  cree    of  the   Council    (now   in   the 

Pope    would     differ    considerably.  British  Museum)  the  Emperor  alone 

Pateologus,     however,     throughout  signs  on  the  Greek  side,  the  Pope 

(as  was  natural  under  the  circum-  and  a  host  of  Latin  ecclesiastics  on 

stances)  was  much  more  complaisant  the  other. 


:^^ 


i'^fp^s^ 


!^ 


7=:^JJJ 


"^n. 


f! 


V 

mm 


c^ 


o    ■= 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE.  IO5 

as  "  Paradise  ")  which  had  been  prepared  for  his  reception.* 
So  speaks  the  Cardinal,  describing,  if  I  mistake  not,  the 
intended  programme  of  the  ceremonial.  The  Greek 
Phrantzes,'"  deriving  his  information  from  the  Emperor's 
Brother,  the  '  Despotes '  of  the  Morea,  who  was  present  on 
the  occasion,  gives  the  following  account  of  what  actually- 
occurred  :  'When  the  Pope  heard  that  the  Emperor  had 
reached  the  gate,  he  rose,  and  took  a  walk,  and  as  he  was 
thus  walking  up  and  down  (spatia  facientem,  apparently  in 
the  grounds  attached  to  the  Palace)  the  Emperor  accidentally 
came  upon  him  ;  and  when  he  would  have  fallen  on  his  knees, 
the  Pope  would  not  permit  him  to  do  so,  but  embraced 
him,  held  out  to  him  his  right  hand,  and  kissed  him,  and 
placed  him  at  his  left  hand  {ad  sinisti^am  snam  collocavit)! 
All  this,  as  Raynaldus  observes,  '  nonnihil  discrepat '  from 
the  representation  on  the  bronze  gates  of  St.  Peter  s,  that 
now  before  you.  '  Visitur  in  seneis  valvis  basilicae  S.  Petri, 
Eugenii  jussu  conflatis,  efformata  effigies,  qua  Pontifex  ipse 
papali  thyara  redimitus,  Imperatori  nudo  capite  altero 
genu  provoluto  manum  porrigit,  a  quo  nonnihil  discrepat 
Phrantzes.' 

But  the  contrast  between  fact  and  representation  of  fact, 
which  is  not  small  in  this  case,  is  far  more  flagrant,  and  far 
more  significant  also,  in  regard  of  the  Patriarch  of '  New 
Rome.' 

It  had  been  arranged,  as  I  have  already  said,  by  the 
Diplomatists  on  either  side,  that  the  Patriarch  should  make 
his  entry  four  days  after  the  Emperor.  And  as  the  whole 
question  of  the  relative  position  of  East  and  West,  of  Old  and 

*  Quoted  in  Latin  by  Raynaldus,  ubi  supra. 


I06  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

New  Rome,  might  have  been  seriously  prejudiced  by  any 
unguarded  concessions,  in  the  matter  of  pubHc  ceremonial, 
on  an  occasion  so  remarkable  as  this,  it  was  not  only 
natural,  but  right,  that  the  whole  programme  should  be 
made  matter  of  careful  arrangement  and  concert  between 
the  two  parties,  or  rather  the  two  Churches,  chiefly  con- 
cerned. On  all  such  occasions,  as  in  the  East  from  the 
remotest  antiquity,  so  in  the  traditionary  public  etiquette 
of  Western  Courts,  both  in  mediaeval  and  modern  times, 
one  main  point  of  ceremonial  observance  is  that  of  the 
goi7ig  out  to  meet  persons  of  great  dignity,  at  specified 
distances  from  the  place  in  which  they  are  actually  to  be 
received.  The  distance  to  which  this  '  Hypantesis ' 
extends,  and  the  rank  of  the  high  officials  who  form  the 
procession,  vary  according  to  the  rank  of  the  person  to  be 
received.  Hence  it  will  be  readily  understood,  that  when 
an  Emperor  was  to  be  received,  the  Roman  Cardinals 
made  no  difficulty  in  going  out  to  meet  him,  because  in  so 
doing  they  did  but  acknowledge,  what  even  they  were  not 
prepared  to  deny,  that  an  Emperor  of  Constantinople  was  a 
more  exalted  personage,  in  point  of  worldly  dignity,  than  a 
'  Prince  '  of  the  Roman  Church.  But  when  they  found  them- 
selves called  on  to  go  out  to  meet  the  Ecumenical  Patriarch, 
a  question  of  precedence  was  involved,  which,  to  the 
Greeks  at  least,  was  not  a  mere  matter  of  personal  dignity, 
but  of  serious  ecclesiastical  importance.  The  view  of  the 
Cardinals  was,  that  they  were  fully  the  equals  of  the 
Patriarch.  But  the  latter,  representing,  as  in  some  sort  he 
did,  the  Eastern  Churches  generally  in  their  relation  to 
those  of  the  West,  was  far  from  admitting  any  such  equality. 
And  upon    primitive  principles  he  was    right  in  so  doing. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE.  \oj 

Greeks,  and  other  Easterns,  who  took  their  stand  on  the 
Canons  of  the  'most  holy  Ecumenical  Synods'  of  the  first 

j  eight  centuries  of  Church  history,  could  know  nothing  of 
'  Cardinals '  as  having  any  recognised  precedence,  as  such, 
in  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy.  To  their  eyes  Cardinals 
were  Bishops,  Priests,  or  Deacons,  as  the  case  might  be, 
holding  various  offices  in  the  court  of  the  Patriarch  of  '  Old 
Rome.'  And  it  is  evident  that,  at  this  period  at  least,  at 
the  first  opening  of  the  Council,  the  Greek  Patriarch  was 
determined  to  maintain  the  position  conceded  to  his  See 
in  the  Councils  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  According 
to  Byzantine  tradition  the  two  Sees  of  Old  and  New  Rome 
were  of  equal  dignity  in  respect  of  their  Patriarchal  rights — 
and  to  New  Rome  in  the  East,  as  to  Old  Rome  in  the  West, 
a  primacy  belonged,  but  with  a  concession  of  ceremonial 
precedence  to  the  older  See.  To  this  view  we  find  Joseph 
and  his  Churchmen  adhering  throughout  these  opening 
scenes  of  the  Council.  And  it  will  be  clear  to  you  at  once 
that  the  Patriarch  would  seriously  have  compromised  his 
position,    if  by    any   public    act    he    had    recognised    the 

■  Cardinals  as  his  own  equals.  Had  he  done  so,  the  con- 
clusion would  have  been  patent,  that,  in  admitting  his 
equality  with  Cardinals,  he  must  be,  by  his  own  confession, 
greatly  the  inferior  of  a  Pope. 

These  considerations  will  account  for  what  took  place 
on  the  occasion  which  is,  I  can  hardly  say  represented,  in 
the  plate  before  you.  The  Patriarch  had  stipulated  that 
all  due  formalities  should  be  observed  in  the  details  of  his 
reception.     The  proper  officials  were  to  meet  him  at  speci- 

1  fied  places ;  and  more  particularly  he  required  that  the 
Cardinals  should  meet  him  outside  the  town,  so  as  to  escort 


I08  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

him  with  due  ceremony  to  the  place  where  the  Pope  awaited 
his  arrival.  As  to  the  Pope  again,  it  had  been  arranged 
that  he  and  the  Patriarch  should  have  precisely  the  same 
number  of  officials  in  attendance  on  them  (they  were  limited 
to  six  each — '  tdtra  Cardmalesl  however,  says  Raynaldus). 
These  and  other  details  had  been  matter  of  concerted  ar- 
rangement ('  conventus ')  between  the  two  potentates,  and 
the  Pope  appears  to  have  carried  out  his  own  part  of  the 
programme  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  parties.  Not  so  the 
Cardinals.  Their  failure  to  perform  their  part  caused  a 
delay  of  a  whole  day  in  the  proceedings.  At  the  time  that 
had  been  appointed  for  the  Patriarch's  solemn  entry.  Arch- 
bishops, Bishops,  and  other  Prelates,  were  present  in  large 
numbers  to  meet  him — the  Marquis  of  Ferrara  and  his  son 
were  also  in  their  place — but  Cardinals  there  were  none. 
What  excuses,  if  any,  were  made  for  their  absence,  we  are 
not  told.  But  the  Patriarch  was  determined  to  hold  his 
own.  He  knew  perfectly  well  what  their  absence  meant, 
and  he  therefore  quietly  remained  in  the  place  he  had  then 
reached  (the  '  portus  quo  naves  Ferrariam  applicant '),  re- 
fusing to  enter  Ferrara  unless  the  programme  of  the  cere- 
monial were  properly  carried  out.  The  result  was,  that  the 
next  morning,  '  by  order  of  the  Pope,'  two  Cardinals  {the 
tivo  juniors,  Deacons,  Raynaldus  adds)  were  in  attendance. 
They  met  the  procession,  but  evidently  in  very  ill  humour ; 
for  Raynaldus  tells  us  that  they  rode  up,  and  without  either 
*  bending  their  bonnets  '  to  the  Patriarch,  or  any  other  salu- 
tation of  civility,  said, '  Reverendissime  Pater,  DominiLS  noster 
Papa  misit  nos  tU  associarcmus  paternitatein  vestram  ;  and 
then,  putting  themselves  on  either  side  of  him,  rode  on  into 
the  city.     The  Pope  remained  seated,  in  a  private  chamber. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE.  IO9 

till  the  Patriarch  arrived,  with  the  Cardinals  placed  {consti- 
ttctis)  at  his  right  hand.  The  Patriarch  was  seated  ifi 
scabello^''  at  the  left  of  the  Pope  ;  and  after  a  brief  conver- 
sation he  was  escorted,  with  the  same  attendance  as  before, 
the  tiuo  Cardinals  excepted,  to  the  palace  assigned  as  his 
residence. 

I  have  dwelt,  in  more  detail  than  I  could  have  wished, 
upon  these  matters,  because  I  could  not  otherwise  bring 
out,  as  clearly  as  the  truth  of  history  requires,  the  egregious 
misrepresentations  of  fact  embodied  in  the  monument  before 
you.  I  need  not,  however,  describe  in  detail  the  other 
plates  of  this  series.  What  I  have  already  said  will  be  suf- 
ficient for  the  purpose  now  before  me.  I  do  not  wish  to 
add  to  the  burden  of  the  charges  of  forgery,  interpolation, 
falsification  of  every  kind,  which  attach  to  the  history  of  the 
Roman  See.  As  Christians  ourselves,  the  shame  of  these 
things  redounds  in  a  measure  upon  us.  The  history  of 
this  Council  would  present  only  too  suggestive  a  theme 
for  reproach,  if  such  were  the  object  in  view.  For  myself, 
in  the  present  paper,  I  purposely  confine  myself  to  such 
points  only  as  are  directly  suggested  by  the  art-monuments 
on  which  I  undertook  to  comment.  But  I  will  not  conceal 
my  opinion,  that  the  circumstances  of  these  our  own  days 
are  such,  even  as  regards  our  own  Church,  that  it  does 
become  a  duty  to  examine,  without  passion  and  without 
prejudice,  but  yet  thoroughly,  and,  as  far  as  may  be,  exhaus- 
tively, the  grounds  on  which  rest  the  claims  now  put  forth 
on  behalf  of  the  Roman  See. 


*  As  to  this,  and  other  details  of  interest  concerning  the  Council  of 
Florence,  see  the  original  authorities  quoted  in  Appendix  (E). 


I  [O  SUPREMACY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE. 

One  great  difficulty  in  doing  so  is,  that  the  personal 
history  of  many  of  the  Popes  from  the  ninth  to  the  fifteenth 
century  (one  which  is  intimately  connected  with  their  claim 
to  vice-gerency  on  God's  behalf  over  the  whole  Church, 
and  their  infallibility),  involves  details  so  horrible,  that  it  is 
impossible  to  reproduce  them  for  general  reading,  even 
under  the  cover  of  a  learned  language. 

But  when  we  find  that  the  more  learned  among  the 
members  of  the  Roman  Church  itself  find  themselves  con- 
strained to  lay  before  the  world  the  utter  hollowness  of 
these  claims  —  when  the  abettors  of  those  claims,  instead  of 
appealing,  in  answer  to  their  opponents,  to  Scripture,  to 
authentic  History,  to  the  text  of  Councils  or  of  Fathers,  can 
do  nothing  but  declare,  through  an  irresponsible  tribunal 
(the  Council  of  the  Index),  that  the  writings  of  those  who 
question  her  infallibility  or  her  supremacy  are  heretical, 
and  to  be  shunned,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  by  all 
good  Catholics — we  have  a  virtual  admission  on  the  part 
of  '  Romanists  '  themselves  (I  purposely  use  the  term  in  its 
distinctive  sense),  that  their  claims  do  not  admit  of  support, 
unless  the  calm  judgments  of  historical  truth  can  be  sup- 
pressed, and  the  verdict  thence  resulting  be  drowned  In  the 
loud  acclaims  of  an  excited  assembly.  It  may  be  that  now 
at  Rome,  as  in  another  great  city  1800  years  ago,  the  voice 
of  Apostolic  truth  may  so  be  drowned  for  awhile  ;  it  may 
be  that  in  this  assembly,  of  which  as  of  that  former  one  we 
read,  that  the  '  more  part  know  not  wherefore  they  be  come 
together,'  all  appeal  to  Scripture,  to  antiquity,  to  reason, 
may  be  overborne  by  a  cry  as  false,  and  soon  to  be  found 
as  false,  as  that  '  Girat  is  Diana  of  the  Ephcsians  !'  that 
was  heard  of  old  by  the  space  of  two  hours.      Men  may.  If 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  FLORENCE.  I  I  I 

SO  they  will,  stop  their  own  ears  against  the  voice  of  truth  ; 
but  the  time  is  past  when  falsehoods  can  be  forced  upon 
the  belief  of  Christendom  by  dint  of  the  acclaiming  voices 
of  a  packed  assembly.  Let  us  pray  Him,  who  is  indeed  the 
Head  over  all  to  the  Church,  who  worketh  out  His  predes- 
tined purpose  through  paths,  and  by  instruments,  that  we 
men  wot  not  of,  that  He  will  overrule,  to  the  fulfilment  of 
His  own  will,  the  counsels  of  rulers,  whereinsoever  they  are 
against  the  Lord,  and  the  blindness  of  peoples,  wherein- 
soever they  are  in  error  ;  and  that  He  will  bless  for  good, 
as  He  alone  can  bless,  every  effort,  however  humble,  for 
the  promoting  of  His  true  kingdom  upon  earth,  and  for  the 
restoration  to  a  distracted  Christendom  of  '  Peace  thro2Lgh 
the  Truth! 


PART     III. 


THE    AUTUN    INSCRIPTION, 


HAVING  REFERENCE  TO  THE  DOCTRINES  OF 


Baptism;  thi>  polg  (Buiiltniiist 


AND 


ilm  ^tatij  of  M  Jaitltful  aftv  iqatlr. 


NOTICE  TO  THE   READER. 

The  Dissertation  that  folloivs  is  a  eombination  of  Tiuo  Paper's^ 
one  of  zvhich  {j-elating  exclusively  to  questions  of  ArcJiceology) 
was  read  lately  before  the  Society  of  Antiquaries ;  the  other 
(as  already  mentioned)  ivas  ivritten  some  feiv  months  ago,  as 
an  Exercise  for  the  Divinity  School  at  Oxford. 


>ii  _ei  I   iiooks  l)a.vt>x)u.]it] 


THE      AUTUN     INSCRIPTION 


THE    AUTUN    INSCRIPTION. 


CHAPTER    I. 


INTRODUCTION. 


To  few,  if  any,  of  those  now  present,  need  I  make  any  apo- 
logy for  bringing  under  notice  the  exact  representation,  now 
in  your  hands,  of  the  Inscription  found  at  Autun  thirty 
years  ago.  It  is  of  exceptional  interest,  on  many  grounds, 
to  the  student  of  Christian  antiquity  ;  and  of  its  important 
bearing  upon  theological  questions  now,  as  for  centuries 
past,  debated  in  the  Church,  there  have  been  some  remark- 
able proofs,  in  quite  recent  times,  among  ourselves.  If 
apology  were  needed  at  all,  it  would  rather  be  for  my  own 
presumption  in  entering  upon  a  task  which,  for  the  last 
thirty  years,  has  exercised  the  ingenuity  of  some  of  the  first 
scholars  and  most  learned  divines  in  almost  every  nation 
in  Europe. 

But  in  dealing  with  subjects  such  as  these,  the  attain- 
ments of  one  generation  form  the  starting-point  of  the 
generation  that  follows.  And  I  should  not  feel  that  any 
labour  I   have  bestowed  on  this  particular  monument  were 


I  I  6  THE  AUTUN  INSCKiriTON. 

at  all  inadequately  repaid,  even  were  I  able  to  do  no  more 
than  to  publish  it  with  that  perfect  accuracy  of  represent- 
ation which  photography  alone  makes  possible,  and  to 
bring  under  the  notice  of  English  students  generally  the 
results  hitherto  reached  by  those  who  have  devoted  them- 
selves to  its  elucidation. 

To  some  present  the  history  of  the  Inscription  itself 
may  be  unknown,  or  only  imperfectly  known ;  and  it  may 
be  well,  therefore,  as  a  first  step,  very  briefly  to  state  what 
that  history  is. 

It  was  found*  in  the  year  1839,  buried  in  the  soil  of  an 
ancient  cemetery,  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  town  of 
Autun,  once  the  capital  of  Gallia  ^duensis.  The  modern 
name  is  an  abbreviation  of  Augustodunum,t  or  '  Augustus 
Town ;'  a  name  which  replaced  the  older  Celtic  name 
Bibracte,  by  which  this  place  had  previously  been  known. 

The  marble,  some  portions  of  which  have  perished 
altogether,  is  twenty-one  inches  in  width,  and  half  an  inch 
less  in  length.  The  letters  are  as  nearly  as  possible  seven- 
eighths  of  an  inch  in  length.  There  are  marks  on  the  back 
of  the  block,  indicating  that  it  was  once  fastened  with  iron 
clamps  to  the  wall  of  some  building.  Dom.  Pitra  (now 
Cardinal),  who  at  the  time  of  its  discovery  was  resident 
close  by,  in  a  seminary  of  which  he  was  the  Master,  was  the 
first  J  to  make  the  Inscription  known  to  the  world.     And 

*  For  full  particulars  as  to  this,  if  In   the    '  Ann.    de    Philos.'    2^ 

see  Pitra,  '  Spicil.  Solesm.' i.  p.  554.  se'r.  t.  xix.  p.  195,  i  Sept.  1839,  with 

f  For  the  history  of  the  town,  an-  the   initials    '  L.  T.  C      For   later 

cient   and  modern,   see   the  article  communications  from  the  same  pen, 

'  Autun,'    in    Zidlers     '  Universale  see  ibid.   3-  serie,   t.  i.  p.  165  ;  t.  ii. 

Lexicon,'  and  the  authorities  there  p.  7  ;  t.  iii.   pp.  7,  85;  t.  v.   p.  165; 

quoted.  t.  vii.  p.  232. 


INTRODUCTION. 


117 


from  that  time  to  this  it  has  served  as  a  subject  for  scholars, 
antiquaries,  and  theologians,  and  has  now  quite  a  liter- 
ature" of  its  own,  and  that  of  the  most  varied  character; 
Frenchmen,  Italians,  Germans,  countrymen  of  our  own, 
descending  in  succession  into  the  field,  whether  for  careful 
research,  as  some,  or  for  the  support  of  some  pre-conceived 
opinion  in  matter  of  modern  controversy,  as  others. 

For  myself  I  propose,  first,  to  inquire,  with  all  the  exact- 
ness that  I  may,  into  the  archaeological  history  of  the  monu- 
ment, and  then  to  consider  its  bearing  upon  theological 
questions. 

And  as  a  first  step  in  the  investigation,  It  may  be  well 
to  translate  the  Inscription  itself  into  letters  of  more  or- 
dinary shape  than  those  seen  in  the  photo-lithograph  now  in 
your  hands.  In  doing  so,  I  confine  myself  to  those  parts 
of  the  Inscription  which  can  with  certainty,  or  all  but  cer- 
tainty, be  determined.  We  can  better  judge  of  the  more 
doubtful  readings,  and  of  the  purely  conjectural  restorations 


*  See   particularly    the    '  Spicile-  last   mentioned) ;    Kirchoff,    in   the 

gium  Solesmense  '  (edited  by  Pitra),  '  Corpus    Inscript.   Graec'    torn.    iv. 

vols.i.-iii.;  and  to  the  various  writers  No.  9890.     The  Bishop  of  Lincoln 

there  quoted  add  Garrucci  (Rafaele),  (Dr.  C.  Wordsworth),  whose  Disser- 

'  Monuments  d'Epigraphieancienne/  tation  on  this  monument  is  printed 

Paris,  4to.    1856,    1857;  F.   Lenor-  in  the  '  Spicil.  Solesm.'  t.  i.  p.  562, 

mant,    '  Memoire    sur    ITnscription  had  not  before  him  at  the  time  an 

d'Autun  '    (' Extrait   des    Melanges  accurate  representation  of  the  actual 

d'Archeologie '),  Paris,   1855;  J.  P.  text.     After   seeing  a  photographic 

Rossignol,' Explication  et  Restitution  copy  of  this,  he  has  seen  reason  to 

de  ITnscription  Chretienne  d'Autun;'  withdraw   some   of  the   conjectural 

'Revue   Archeologique,'    13''  anne'e  readings  which  he  had  suggested  in 

(I'^serie),  Paris,  1856,  p.  65  sqq.  and  writing  to  Dom.  Pitra  ;  and  I  hope 

p.  491  sqq.  (this  last  being  a  bitter  to  be  able  to  add  his  last  corrections 

attack  upon  the  treatise  of  Garrucci  in  the  Appendix  to  this  volume. 


Il8  THE  AUTUN  INSCRH'TION. 

proposed  for  the  two  last  lines,  when  the  whole  history  of 
the  monument  shall  have  been  clearly  set  before  us. 

'I^^yoj  o[y^(x,viov  cly\iov  ykvog  rjro^i  ai^vu 

Xo^trs""   Xul^oju  Zconv  {or  -Trriy^u)   uijj^ootov  Iv  ^o^orioic, 

"X^ocatv  azvdoig  'TrXovrohorov  (ro(pirjg, 

'EojTJJ^og  ^'  uyiajv  ybzkiriViot,  Xd[/j(iocus  (o^cuaiv. 

"Eadis  TTivoccov  t   {/or  TTsivdccov)  '  ly^ddv  ixuv  '7ca.\oc[jjaic. 

'\'Y&vi  %£ a^a  }a\Dtko  hea'Troroc   2a;rg^ 

zv   (or  av) rri^  az  XiTa,^o[JA  |  (pSJg  ro  &ayovrMV. 

' K(jyjx.v}ni  'Trdrs^,  roj  '  [Jjoj  7czyo!,^ia[Avz   &vyr2 

GVV    (00  § OKTIV    i^jCnfflV 

I  II (M^aZO    YIZKTO^IOV.  * 

And  the  general  meaning  will  be  this  : — 

'  Offspring  of  the  heavenly  Ichthus,  see  that 
a  heart  of  holy  reverence  be  thine,  now  that  from 
Divine  waters  thou  hast  received,  while  yet  among 
mortals,    a   fount    of  life   that   is    to    immortality. 

*  Either  for  exp'/o-f,  or  (as  Xird-  grounds. 

i^ofie   for   XiTu'Co^iai,    in  ver.   8)    for  \  For  XiraCojuat,  by  an  'Itacism' 

Xpt'i'Tui  (i  aor.  imp.  mid.).  of  frequent  occurrence  in  epigraphic 

f  First    suggested    by    Gan-ucci  Greek, 

(having   a  photograph   of  the    text  §  Probably  avv  fxTfrpl  yXv^ep^j  kuI 

before  him),  and  approved  by  Kir-  ahe\(peio~iaiy  f./dola-ip  (Franz),  or  a.  fx. 

choff,  on  the  evidence  of  the  same  y.    kuI    Trdmi'   unaif   ifioiaiv    (Ros- 

photograph.     The  older  restorations  signol),  or  o-.  fj..  y.  <tvv  t    olKtLoiaw 

yirlvE  XafjMr  —  x7)''  acqv — irlv   vyiav  kfioliriv  (Pitra). 

—  Tr~LVE   Ttalv — Tr~ive    ^vdlv)   are    too  ||   Probably  'X^*^''  '^<^''  ^'t'>v  /.irijaEO 

long  for  the  space  to  be  filled  up,  UeKropiov. 
and  arc  open  to  objections  on  other 


INTRODUCTION, 


119 


Quicken  thy  soul,  beloved  one,  with  ever-flowing 
waters  of  wealth-giving  wisdom,  and  receive  the 
honey-sweet  food  of  the  Saviour  of  the  saints.* 
Eat  with  a  longing  hunger,  holding  Ichthus  in 
thine  hands.' 

'To  Ichthus  ....  Come  night  unto  me,  my 
Lord  [and]  Saviour  [be  Thou  my  Guide]  I  en- 
treat Thee,  Thou  Light  of  them  for  whom  the 
hour  of  death  is  past.' 

*  Aschandius,  my  Father,  dear  unto  mine 
heart,  and  thou  [sweet  mother,  and  all]  that  are 
mine  ....   remember  Pectorius.' 

With  thus  much  said  by  way  of  introduction,  we  may 
proceed  now  to  consider  some  preliminary  questions,  the 
solution  of  which  is  necessary  to  a  right  understanding,  and 
the  more  complete  restoration,  of  the  Inscription  before  us. 

And  first,  it  will  be  well  to  state,  in  some  detail,  what 
were  the  ideas  more  particularly  associated  in  the  thought 
of  Primitive  Christendom  with  that  Ichthus  symbol  which 
is  so  prominent  in  the  monument  before  us. 


*  For   ayiwv   Wordsworth   reads  XiXaleo,  i.  e.  literally,  '  long  thyself 

ay'  <w»',  a  reading  which  is  adopted  (to  me),  and  so  '  let  thine  own  love 

from  him  by  Kirchoff.  bring  thee  nigh.'     See  further  as  to 

f  Assuming    the    reading   to   be  this  below,  p.  137. 


I20  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  SYMBOLISM  OF  THE  WORD  1X6YC. 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  we  might  seek  to  determine 
what  this  symboHsm  was.  One,  which  would  be  a  very 
interesting,  but  a  very  laborious  way,  that  of  examining  in 
detail  the  various  monuments  of  ancient  Christian  art,  in 
which  this  symbol  is  employed.  It  would  be  impossible, 
however,  even  to  attempt  this  within  present  limits.  The 
other  is  that  of  referring  to  the  statements  concerning  this 
symbolism,  contained  in  the  literature  of  antiquity.  This 
latter  source  of  evidence  itself  extends  over  an  immense 
field,""  but  it  admits  of  being  at  least  summarily  stated 
here. 

In  doing  so,  I  will  exclude  all  secondary  and  more  far- 
fetched symbolisms,  of  which  there  are  many,  and  confine 
myself  to  those  which  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  our 
present  subject.  What  we  are  now  concerned  with,  for 
the  elucidation  of  this  Autun  Inscription,  is  the  application 
of  this  symbol  of  the  Fish,  first,  to  our  blessed  Lord,  and, 
secondly,  to  Christian  people  generally. 

*  See  more  particularly  the  great  '  Spicilegium  Solesmense.'  But  these 
collection  of  authorities  brought  to-  require  careful  verification,  as  they 
gcther  in  the  third  volume  of  the      are  not  always  accurately  cited. 


THE  SYMBOLISM  OF  THE  WORD  IXGYC.  I  2  I 

I.    The  Term  IX0TC,  or  '  Piscis'  in  reference  to  our  Lord. 

In  the  language  of  Christian  writers,  both  in  East  and 
West,  from  the  second  century  onwards,  our  Lord  is  spoken 
of  as  IX0TC,  as  '  Piscis,'  '  Piscis  noster,'  and  the  Hke,  and 
that  for  a  variety  of  reasons. 

First,  in  respect  that  the  fish,  blessed  on  more  than  one 
occasion  to  the  feeding  of  great  multitudes,  or  of  His  own 
Apostles  (John,  xxi.),  by  our  Lord  while  on  earth,  was 
regarded  as  a  type  of  that  heavenly  food,  His  body  offered 
on  the  Cross,  which  He  gave  for  the  life  of  the  world.* 
And,  according  to  the  mystical  interpretation  of  Scripture 
adopted  by  many  of  the  Fathers,  the  '  broiled  fish,'  to- 
gether with  a  piece  of  honeycomb,  of  which  our  Lord 
partook  \vith  His  Disciples  after  His  resurrection,  was 
regarded  as  a  type  of  Christ  Himself,  in  regard  of  His 
passion,  when  by  the  fire  of  tribulation  He  was,  as  it  were, 
'  scorched.'  This  thought,  which  we  meet  with  first  in 
Melito  of  Sardis  \Piscis  in  niensa  cum  favo  mellis  positus 
Ckristus  tribulationis  igne  assatus\  gave  rise  to  the  catch- 
word, so  to  call  it,  of  this  symbolism,  '  Piscis  assus,  Christus 
passus!  t 

*  Compare  the  word   spoken  by  which  is  shed  for  you' (ro  Ekxi^j'dyufj'oi/ 

our   Lord    Himself  (John,  vi.    51),  vTrep   v^iwj',  poured  out  ou  your  be- 

'  The  bread  which  I  will  give  (/.  e.  htilf). 

as  the  context  implies,  Avhich  I  will  j  St.  Augustine  in  Joan.  Evang. 

give  to  men)  is   my  flesh,  which   I  Tract,  cxxiii.      '  Fecit  prandiuvi  Do- 

will  give /^r  (vTrep,  /;/  behalf  of)  the  minus  illis  septem  discipulis  suis,  de 

life  of  the  world.'    And  again  (Mark,  pisce  scilicet  quern  prunis  superpositujn 

xiv.  24,  coll.  Luke,  xxii.  20),  '  This  viderant,  huic  adjungens  ex  illis  quos 

is  my  Body,  which  is  given  for  you '      ceperant,   et  de  pane Piscis 

(vwep  vnuiv,  on  your  behalf).     'This  assus,    Christus  passus.     Ipse  est  et 

is  my  Blood  of  the  New  Co\-enant,  panis  qui  de  caio  descendit.' 


122  Tllli  AUTUN   INSCRIPTION. 

Secondly,  inasmuch  as  fish  was,  in  primitive  times,  very 
generally  in  use  as  an  ordinary  article  of  food,  as  a  savoury'"" 
accompaniment  to  the  bread,  which  in  some  form  or  other 
formed  the  chief  staple  of  food,  so  under  the  figure  of 
fish,  as  well  as  under  that  of  bread,  early  writers  not  un- 
frequently  designated  the  wholesome  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  particularly  the  words  of  truth  contained  in  Holy 
Scripture,  t 

Thirdly,  when  the  practice  of  figuratively  J  designating 
our  Lord  as  IX0YC,  or  Piscis,  had  become  established,  it 
was  not  unnatural  to  connect  this  thought  with  that  of 
birth  {i.e.  new  birth)  in  water.  The  earliest  example  of 
this  is  the  well-known  passage  in  Tertullian  (De  Bapt.  c.  i), 
'  We  smaller  fishes,  after  the  example  of  our  Fish,  are  born 
in  the  waters,  and  it  is  only  by  continuing  in  those  waters 
that  we  are  safe  (continue  in  a  state  of  salvation).  A^^^- 
pisciculi  secuudtmi  Piscem  nostriun  in  aquis  nascivntr,  nee 

*  Compare  St.  Augustine,    '  Duo  fying  the  Tvpo-n-aiZEia,  or  preparatory 

pisces  qui  saporem  siiavem  pani  da-  teaching,  of  Greeks  and  Jews.    And 

bant.'     De  Div.  Qutest.  Ixi.  St.  Cyril  Alex.  (In  Joan.  vi.  torn.  iv. 

f  So  St.  Jerome  on  Matt.  xiv.  17.  p.  283),  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  feeding 

(0pp.  t.  iv.  p.  6o)-;  and  again  (ibid.  unto  life  eternal  them  that  believe 

t.  vii.  p.  119),   'In  septem  panibus  on  Him,  with  divine  and  heavenly 

et  pisciculis  Evangelii  sacramenta '  teaching,  both  that  of  the  Law,  and 

(/.  c.  mystical  types  of  the  Gospel  of  that   of  the  Evangelists   and   Apo- 

Christ).  Pseudo-Eusebius  Emissenus  sties.     So  St.  Ambrose  (In  Luc.  ix. 

(In  Domin.  vii.  post  Pentec.  ap2ui  No.  80,  tom.  i.  p.   1403,  ed.  Bene- 

Spic.  So/.),  '  Septem  panes,  septem  diet.),  '  Plerique  septiformis  Spiritus 

libri  sunt  Veteris  Testamenti,  quos  gratiam    in    panibus    definitam,   in 

heptateuchum  vocamus ;  pauci  vero  piscibus  quoque  duplicis  testamenti 

pisciculi,    pauci    libri    Novi   Testa-  figuram  intelligendam  putant.' 
menti.'    Clemens  Alex.  '  Strom.'  lib.  |  Comp.  Origen  in  Matt.  (0pp. 

vi.    (p.  786,  ed.  Potter.),  speaks  of  ed.  Bened.  tom.  iii.  p.  584),  Xpiarog 

the  fishes  and  barley-loaves  as  typi-  6  rpoKiKWi:  Xt-yufxeroe  'Ix^vq. 


THE  SYMBOLISM  OF  THE  WORD  IXGlC. 


123 


nisi  in  aqnis  pcnuancndo  salvi  sntjius. 
This  is  curiously  illustrated  by  the  Epi- 
scopal Ring,  here  engraved  (twice  the 
size  of  the  original),  which  belonged  to 
St.  Arnulf,  Bishop  of  Metz,  in  the  sixth 
century.* 

Lastly,t  Christ  Himself,  in  respect 
both  of  His  divine  and  of  His  human 
nature,  was  mystically  signified  in  a  way  that  none  but 
Christians  could  understand  ;  in  reference,  not  now  to  fish 
as  mentioned  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  regarded  as  a  spiritual 
food,  but  to  the  letters,  of  w^hich  the  Greek  word  IX0TC 
is  composed,  and  which  form  the  initials  of  the  titles  spe- 
cially belonging  to  our  Lord,  '\-rtaovg  X-gi(TTog  Q-sou  T-Iog 
l-MT'/ig,  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God,  Saviour. 


2.    T/ic  IX0TC  Symdo/  applied  to  Men. 


The  second  of  the  symbolic  usages  for  the  '  fish '  of 
early  Christian  writers,  which  w^e  have  to  consider,  is  its 
application  to  men  generally, —  to  the  faithful  for  one 
reason,  and  through  one  line  of  association  ;  to  the  unfaithful 
and  unworthy  for  another. 


*  See  Pitra,  '  Spicil.  Solesm.'  t.  iii. 
Tab.  iii.  n.  4. 

t  1  speak  of  this  as  last  in  order, 
because  it  appears  to  me,  on  exa- 
mination of  all  the  evidence,  that 
this  acrostic  symbolism  was  not  the 
foundation  out  of  which  all  the  others 
sprung  (as  some  eminent  archceolo- 


gists  have  held,  and  as  theologians, 
not  being  archseologists,  have  com- 
monly assumed),  but  was  a  compa- 
ratively late  invention  (probably  of 
the  Alexandrian  schools),  founded 
upon  the  older  accepted  symbolisms 
already  attached  to  the  fish  in  lite- 
rature and  in  art. 


124  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

It  will  suffice  to  mention  this  last,  without  dwelling 
upon  it  in  any  detail,  as  this  application  is  one  which  in 
no  way  pertains  to  the  elucidation  of  the  monument  before 
us. 

But  with  the  other  we  are  directly  concerned.  For  in 
the  very  opening  line  of  the  Inscription,  we  find  that  either 
baptized  Christians  in  general  (according  to  one  interpreta- 
tion), or  more  particularly  the  Apostles  and  other  teachers 
of  the  Divine  Word,  are  spoken  of  as  '  the  [holy]  offspring 
of  the  heavenly  IX0TC  ;'  in  other  words,  as  being  them- 
selves Ix^Ug,  or,  in  the  language  of  Tertullian,  ' pisciciUil  in 
respect  of  the  new  spiritual  life  of  which,  through  Christ, 
they  have  become  partakers. 

The  very  earliest  writer  who  treats  ex  professo  on  the 
allegorical  meaning  of  Scripture,  Melito  of  Sardis  {circ. 
150  A.D.),  furnishes  us  with  an  authority  for  this  application 
of  the  word,  and  shows  on  what  passage  of  Holy  Scripture 
this  allegorical  application  was  more  especially  based. 
*  Fishes,'  says  Melito,*  'are  the  holy  ones  of  God  :  Pisces 
Sancti.  For  so  it  is  written,  "  Traxerimt  rete  plemim  pis- 
cibiis  magiiis." '  John,  xxi.  11. 

Some  of  the  Fathers  even  make  the  symbol,  in  this 
sense,  more  comprehensive  still,  applying  it  to  mankind 
generally,  as  when  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  speaks  of 
our  Lord  as  having  chosen  the  fishermen  (the  Apostles),  in 
order  that  they  might  bring  forth  man,  the  fish,  out  of  the 
deep  (Jv  Iz  ^ocdovg  rov  'ly^^vv  uvivzyKri  tov  clv&^oj'Trov).  And  so 
St.  Maximus  of  Turin  :  '  Palpitantes  pisces  vivijicaiidi 
homines'    Sermo  xcvi.     (Quoted  by  Pitra.) 

*    Melito,   '  Clavis,'   xl.4  2.       Elsewhere  (cap.  xii.  n.   25)  he  refers  to 
the   same  :    '  Centum   quinquaginta   tres— c/z/z/a   clcctL' 


THE  SYMBOLISM  OF  THE  WORD  IX0YC.  I  25 

The  language  of  TertulHan  speaking  of  the  baptized 
as  ' pisciculil  '  smaller  fishes,'  in  respect  of  their  new  birth 
in  the  waters  of  baptism,  has  been  already  quoted  (p.  122). 
With  this  agree  some  few  passages  in  later  writers  ;  as,  for 
example,  St.  Hilary,*  St.  Optatus,t  and  St.  Augustine, J  to 
name  no  more. 


3.    The  Symbolism  of  this  Monument. 

The  passages  now  quoted,  and  the  various  usages  of 
the  IX0TC  symbol  here  enumerated,  will  suffice  for  the 
illustration  of  the  monument  before  us,  in  which  we  have 
both  the  acrostic  IX0TC  in  the  initial  letters  of  the  five 
first  lines  ;  then,  the  personal  application  of  the  term  to 
our  Lord  (as  in  ver.  i)  ;  a  similar  application  to  Him 
considered  more  particularly  as  the  spiritual  food  whereon 
they   feed,   for  the  sustaining  of  the  new  life,  who    have 


*  Hilarius  in  Matt.  ed.  Benedict,  cam  in  imo  nomine  per  singulas  li- 

p.  677;   a  passage  which  contains  teras    turbam    sanctorum    nominum 

the   same   thought   by   impHcation.  continet,   IXGYi:,  quod  est  latinum 

'  Ex  hominum  arte  futuri  eorum  {sc.  Jesus  Christiis  Dei  Films  Salvator! 
apostolorum)   officii   opus   proditur,  \  S.  Augustini  Confessionum  Hb. 

ut   piscibus  e  mari,   ita   hominibus  xiii.  c.  23   (Migne,   tom.  i.   p.  860). 

deinceps  e  sceculo,  in  locum  supe-  '  Homo  ....    accepit   potestatem 

riorem,    id   est,    in   lumen    crelestis  piscium  maris  ....  approbat  quod 

habitaculi  protrahendis.'  recte,  improbat  autem  quod  perpe- 

t  S.    Optati    Milev.    de    Schism,  ram  invenerit :  sivc  in  ea  sokmnitate 

Donat.    lib.   iii.    cap.   2.     '  Hie    (sc.  sacranicjitorum  qnibus  initiantur  quos 

Christus)  est  piscis  qui  in  baptismate  pervestigat  in  aqiiis  nmltis  misericor- 

per   invocationem   fontalibus   imdis  dia  tna,  sive  in  ea  qua  ille  Piscis  ex- 

inseritur,  ut,  quas  aqua  fuerat,  a  pisce  hibctur  quern    la'atuin   de  prof  undo 

etiam  piscina  vocitetur-.    Cujus  piscis  terra  pia  coincditJ 
nomen  secundum appellationem  Gra;- 


126  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

already,  through  Him,  received  new  birth  of  the  spirit 
(so  in  ver.  6) ;  while  in  the  first  line  either  the  Apostles 
(as  some  think),  or  the  baptized  generally  (according  to  the 
interpretation  above  followed),  are  spoken  of  as  '  born  of 
Ichthus,'  i.e.,  as  having  received  new  birth  from  Christ. 

With  thus  much  premised  for  the  explanation  of  the 
terms  employed  in  the  Inscription  before  us,  we  proceed 
now  to  further  matter  which  yet  remains  for  discussion. 


CHAPTER  HI. 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION. 


What  has  been  said  hitherto  by  way  of  introduction  will 
suffice  as  a  first  step  towards  the  determination  of  some 
more  debatable  questions,  connected  with  the  monument 
under  our  consideration.  And  among  these  we  may  con- 
sider first  that  of  the  date  to  which  it  may  probably  be 
assigned. 

There  are  three  main  sources  of  evidence  to  be  relied 
on  in  determining  these  : — the  surroundings  of  the  monu- 
ment itself,  considered  in  reference  to  the  history  of  the 
place  in  which  it  was  found  ;  the  palaeography  of  the 
Inscription,  in  other  words,  the  form  and  arrangement  of 
the  letters  employed  ;  and,  lastly,  the  internal  evidence 
afforded  by  style  of  composition,  and  by  the  symbolical 
language  employed. 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION.  I  2/ 

I.  Local  History. 

The  surroundings,  first,  of  the  monument,  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  place  in  which  it  was  found. 

It  was  discovered,  as  we  have  already  said,  buried  in 
the  soil  of  an  ancient  cemetery,  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
of  Autun,  There  are  some  interesting  facts  connected 
with  the  history  of  this  town,  which  it  is  of  importance 
to  bear  in  mind  in  reference  to  our  Inscription.  This  city 
was  distinguished,  I  may  first  say,  by  a  peculiarly  Greek 
culture ;  and  of  this  there  is  proof,  even  to  this  day,  in  the 
fact  that  Greek  words  are  still  preserved  in  the  local  dialect 
of  that  town  and  neighbourhood,  which  are  wholly  un- 
known elsewhere.  Of  this  there  is  a  remarkable  instance 
in  regard  of  the  very  cemetery  of  which  we  are  now 
speaking.  This  is  known,  locally,  not  as  a  cimetiere,  but 
diS  polymidre,  i.e.  '7Cokvh\iov. 

And  to  this  last  fact  I  would  ask  your  special  attention, 
as  it  is  one  out  of  many  concurrent  circumstances  which 
serve  to  the  determining  of  the  true  date  of  the  Inscription. 
The  fact  itself,  curiously  enough,  was  commented  on  some 
thirteen  hundred  years  ago  by  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  in 
a  passage  which  has  utterly  puzzled  both  editors  and 
readers.  St.  Gregory  had  himself  visited  this  very  ceme- 
tery of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  and  in  referring  to 
it  [' De  Gloria  Conf  c.  73],  he  says,  that  this  ccemeterijun 
was  called  by  a  Gallic  name,  because  '  the  bodies  of  many 
men  were  buried  there!  '  Coenieteritim  Gallica  lingtia  voci- 
tavit  eo  qnod  multornm  hominitm  cadavera  ibi  funerata 
sint!  People  naturally  asked  themselves,  in  reading  this 
passage,  what  this  could  possible  mean.     The  purpose  of 


128  TIIK  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

all  cemeteries  alike  beino-,  that  'the  bodies  of  ma7iy  men' 
may  be  buried  in  them,  it  was  difficult  (nay,  more  than 
difficult)  to  say  why  a  '  Gaulish  '  name  should  have  been 
given  to  this  cemetery,  because  of  this  not  very  surprising 
fact.  But  all  becomes  clear  when  we  find  that  in  the  local 
dialect  of  this  town,  even  to  this  day,  this  particular  ceme- 
tery is  known  as  '  polyandre,'  that  is,  the  Greek  'ttoXvuuI^iov, 
a  place,  literally,  '  0/  77iany  men!  This  is  interesting  in 
a  philological  point  of  view  ;  but  I  venture  to  think  that 
there  lies  wrapped  up  in  this  a  valuable  historical  indication 
of  importance  to  our  present  purpose.  For  what  is  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  words  x,oi\jjrirri^iov  and  '^roXvoivl^tov, 
between  the  place  of  res^,  as  in  sleep,  and  the  'place  of 
ma7ty  (men)  bodies  f  The  distinction  is  significant  in 
itself,  and  of  import  to  our  present  purpose.  The  first, 
'  the  place  of  peaceful  rest,'  is  the  Christia7i  ter77i,  unknown 
in  this  sense  to  classical  writers,  while  the  latter  word, 
itokvavh^iQv,  the  '  polyandre  '  of  Autun  usage  for  1 800  years 
or  more,  is  a  classical  term,"^'  of  which,  with  this  07ie  excep- 
tio7t,  there  are  no  traces  to  be  found  in  Christian  language. 
And  how,  then,  are  we  to  account  for  this  exceptional 
occurrence  ?  Simply  by  this,  that  this  ground  had  been 
the  site  of  a  Paga7i\  burial-place  long  before  it  was  devoted 

*  It  is  interesting  to  find  in  the  men  (aj/f^pec)  were  buried, 

exact  meaning  of  the  word  an  ex-  f  This  is  known  to  have  been  the 

planation  of  the  word  avl^tq  (^nri)  case.     See   Lenormant,    '  Memoire,' 

entering    into    the    composition    of  &c.,    j).    1,    n.    i.     '  Ce    Polyandre, 

■KoXvavl^inv .    ratlier    than     rlr^pwTrot  d'abord  occiipe  par  Ics  paiais,  etait 

ijiomincs).    The  Tj-oXvavcpior  was  not  devenu  des  les  premiers  siecles  du 

an  ordinary  burial-place,  but  one  in  Christianisme  un  cimitiere  chre'tien.' 

which,  after  a  battle,  or  other  the  Pagan  inscriptions  have  been  found 

like  occasion,   a    number    of  grown  there,  testifying  to  the  fact. 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION.  I  29 

to  Christian  use,  and  consequently  had  its  Pagan  designa- 
tion ah'eady  assigned  to  it,  and  sanctioned  by  long  usage, 
at  the  time  of  its  transfer  to  Christian  hands.  But  when 
can  this  transfer  have  taken  place  ?  Surely  not  till  after 
the  public  recognition  of  Christianity  by  Constantine.  True 
it  is,  that,  even  in  the  three  first  centuries,  Christian  com- 
munities took  advantage  of  Roman  law  giving  facilities  for 
the  purchase  of  land  by  '  collegia  fztneraticia  '  (nearly  our 
'Burial  Clubs'),  and  were  enabled  thus  to  obtain  land  of  their 
own  for  the  purposes  of  Christian  burial.  But  it  is  scarcely 
conceivable  that  a  Pagan  burial-place  should  have  been 
transferred  to  Christian  hands  till  after  the  public  recog- 
nition of  Christianity  by  Constantine,  early  in  the  fourth 
century.  The  earliest  historical  notice  of  the  place,  that 
of  Gregory  of  Tours,  in  the  sixth  century,  is  such  as  to 
confirm  the  conclusion  to  which  these  considerations  point. 
For  he  mentions,  almost  in  the  same  breath,  two  Bishops 
of  Autun  ;  one  being  Reticius,  who  was  a  contemporary 
of  Constantine,  and  died  early  in  the  fourth  century  ;  the 
other  Cassianus,  who  died  at  the  close  of  that  century. 
And  as  he  records  (*  De  Gl.  Conf.,'  74,  75)  the  fact  of  his 
seeing  in  this  cemetery  the  tomb  of  Cassianus,  but  says  no- 
thing of  that  of  Reticius,  we  have  here  again  a  fact  which,  at 
any  rate,  exactly  fits  in  with  what  I  have  already  suggested. 

These  facts,  then,  as  far  as  they  go,  all  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  no  Christian  Inscription,  such  as  that  we 
are  now  considering,  could  have  been  put  up  in  the  *  poly- 
andrium '  of  Autun  before  the  fourth  century,  and  probably 
the  latter  half  of  it  at  the  earliest. 

This  conclusion  will  be  further  confirmed  by  what  we 
know  of  the  fortunes  of  the  Church  at  Autun  before  '  the 


130  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIP'J'ION. 

Peace'  of  Constantine.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  Christianity,  either  here,  or  in  other  parts  of  Gaul, 
before  the  arrival  of  Irenseus  and  his  companions  at  Lyons. 
Cardinal  Pitra,  indeed,  assumes  (as  Roman  traditions,  I 
believe,  make  it  proper  for  him  to  assume)  that  the  Gospel 
was  preached  there  by  Roman  missionaries  before  '  Greek 
Christianity'  (as  they  speak  of  it)  was  introduced  by  Irenaeus 
and  others  from  Asia  Minor.  But  he  gives  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  in  support  of  his  assertion.  And  I  believe 
that  in  point  of  fact  there  is  no  such  evidence  to  be  pro- 
duced. M.  Lenormant,  who  alone  has  given  any  special 
notice  of  the  town  and  its  history,  says  decidedly,  that  the 
Church  was  established  for  the  first  time  in  the  city  of 
Autun  subsequently  to  the  preaching  of  St.  Irenaeus  and 
his  followers.  After  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Irenseus,  terrible 
persecutions  were  directed  against  the  churches  of  Gaul, 
during  which  Christianity  was  almost  extirpated  in  Gallia 
yEduensis.  In  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  however, 
there  was  a  brief  period  of  peace,  during  which  SS. 
Saturninus  and  Dionysius  (the  St.  Denis  of  the  French), 
and  five  other  Bishops,  restored  the  faith  in  Gaul.  And  it 
was  then  that  Autun  received  her  first  Bishop,  St.  Amator. 
But  this  peace  was  not  of  long  duration.  Heathens  and 
Christians  alike  suffered  terribly  at  Autun  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  third  century,  during  the  peasant  wars  of  the 
Bagaudas.  Tetricus  besieged  the  town,  took  it  after  a 
prolonged  resistance,  destroyed  many  of  the  public  build- 
ings, and  inflicted  injuries  upon  the  place  from  which  it  did 
not  recover  for  many  years. 

With  the  accession  of  Constantius  Chlorus,  in  the  year 
292  A.D.,  to  the  rank  of  Caesar,  and  to  the  government  of 


DATE  OF  THK  IXSCRII'TION.  I3I 

the  provinces  of  Spain,  Gaul,  and  Britain,  a  happier  era 
dawned.  Autun,  the  ancient  capital  of  Gallia  ^duensis, 
became  a  royal  residence,  and  received  many  and  substantial 
marks  of  Imperial  favour.  The  wise  and  merciful  policy  of 
Constantius  Chlorus  averted  from  Gaul  the  horrors  of  the 
Diocletian  Persecution.  But  up  to  the  very  time  of  the 
Peace  of  Constantine,  we  find  conclusive  evidence  of  the 
public   maintenance,  at  Autun,  of  the  old   Pagan  worship. 

At  this  period,  just  before  the  conversion  of  Constantine, 
while  Christianity  was  protected  at  Autun,  but  not  formally 
recognised,  M.  Lenormant,""  an  eminent  Prench  critic,  be- 
lieves that  this  monument  was  erected. 

When  you  have  heard  the  further  evidence  yet  to  be 
adduced,  you  will,  I  think,  be  of  opinion  that  yet  a  hundred 
years  more,  at  the  least,  should  be  subducted  from  the  age 
which  he  assigns  to  this  Inscription,  before  we  shall  arrive 
at  what  is  probably  its  true  date. 

2.   Pala-ooraphical  Data. 

In  saying  this,  I  refer  more  particularly  to  the  evidence 
of  date  afforded  by  the  palaeography  of  the  Inscription  itself, 
—  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the  form,  the  size,  the 
arrangement,  of  the  letters. 

*  Melanges,  &c.,  p.  21.  He  that  the  '  disciplina  a?raiii  etait  en- 
names  the  year  350  a.d.  as  the  latest  core  en  vigueur  et  encore  neces- 
to  which  it  can  be  probably  assigned,  saire.'  For  a  refutation  of  this  argu- 
and  evidently  inclines  to  the  very  ment  see  Rossignol,  '  Explication,' 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century  as  &c.,  p.  loi  ;  and  compare  what  is 
its  true  date  {compare  p.  24)  :  his  said  in  the  appendix,  in  the  notes  on 
chief  reason  apparently  being  this —  this  paper. 


132  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

The  question  now  mooted  is  one  upon  which  no  one 
should  venture  to  pronounce  an  opinion,  who  has  not  made 
Greek  epigraphy  a  special  subject  of  study.  For  this 
reason  I  shall  appeal  here  exclusively  to  the  opinion  of 
experts  ;  and  these  I  will  state  in  the  order  in  which  they 
became  known  to  myself. 

i.  Cardinal  Pitra,  who  with  a  pardonable  enthusiasm 
for  a  monument  which  he  may  claim  as  specially  his  own 
discovery,  has  from  the  first  contended*  for  a  very  early 
date,  between  the  years  160  and  202  a.d.  And  in  support 
of  his  opinion  he  alleges  Franz,  one  of  the  editors  of  the 
'  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Graecarum.'  He  quotes  him  as 
saying  (what  in  point  of  fact  he  really  does  say)  that  the 
monument  dates  from  the  close  of  the  second  century,  or 
the  beginning  of  the  third.  Till  I  had  an  opportunity  of 
referring  to  Franz's  own  treatise,  I  attributed  great  weight 
to  this  opinion.  But  on  reading  this,  I  found  that  Franz 
expressly  says  he  had  not  the  means  of  forming  any  judg- 
ment upon  the  question  of  date  on  palseographical  grounds 
(the  very  questions  on  which  he,  as  presumably  an  expert 

*   '  Tria  sunt  in  primordiis  eccle-  Romano  pontifice  novi  apostoli,  ter- 

siffi  Augustodunensis  intervalla  satis  tia  quasi   vice,  Christum  in  Galliis 

distincta ;  primum  enim  iliac,  uti  et  disseminarunt.     Inde  liquet  medium 

per   cgeteras   Gallias   ignoti   quidam  tempus  totum  esse  nostrum,  neque 

apostoli  romani  fidei  semina  jecerunt.  aliud  quserendum;  quod  scilicet  inter 

Deinde   grascorum   Patrum   Pothini  annos  CLX.  et  ecu.  continetur.    Qua 

et  Irensei  assecls,  prseeuntibus  tantis  quidem  tempestate  vix  dubium  vix- 

ducibus.     Divi  Johannis  disciplinas  isse  auctorem   inscriptionis  nostrge, 

ex  Asia  secum  in  Galliam  attulere ;  quem  Graecum   fuisse,  vel  ab  Asia 

postremo,  ineunte  saeculo  iii.,  trucu-  oriundum  ex  sermonis  elegantia  et 

lenta  csede   Irensei  et  suorum  cum  quodam  Asiaticse  scripture  charac- 

immenso  jacentis  ecclesiae  Lugdun-  tere,  conjicere  par  est.' 
ensis  luctu  patrata,  tandem  missi  a 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION.  I  33 

in  such  matters,  would  have  spoken  with  authority),  and 
that  he  judged  solely  from  the  character  of  '  the  little  poem,' 
which,  as  he  truly  says,  is  a  remarkable  example  of  the 
language  proper  to  the  ^  disciplina  arcaiii!  In  short,  Franz 
has  simply  taken  for  granted  the  historical  data  put  forward 
by  Cardinal  Pitra  ;  and  his  opinion  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  palseographical  evidence,  as  he  himself  is  careful 
to  state.* 

ii.  Wishing  to  obtain  the  best  opinion  upon  this  ques- 
tion, I  sent  a  photographed  copy  of  the  Inscription  to 
Mr.  C.  T.  Newton,  the  keeper  of  Greek  and  Roman 
antiquities  at  the  British  Museum,  whose  authority  in 
questions  of  classical  epigraphy,  at  least,  no  one  would 
dispute.  I  knew  that  if  he  were  not  as  much  at  home 
amid  these  comparatively  late  Inscriptions  of  Christian 
Gaul  as  he  has  shown  himself  to  be  with  those  of  Cnidus 
and  Halicarnassus,  and  other  Greek  cities,  he  would  have 
at  hand  in  Mr.  Franks  one  whose  knowledge  of  all  ques- 
tions of  archaeology  is  second  to  none  that,  in  this  country 
at  least,  could  be  named.  And  I  asked  him  to  give  me 
his  opinion  of  the  date  of  the  Inscription  I  enclosed,  having 
regard  solely  to  palceograp/iical  data.  Not  long  after  I 
received  his  answer.  He  told  me  that  he  had  examined 
the  Inscription  very  carefully  with  Mr.  Franks,  and  they 
believed  it  to  be  of  the  fourth  century,  or  perhaps  of  the 
fifth.  He  added,  that  after  they  had  formed  their  own 
opinion  on  the  question  I  had  put  to  them,  they  turned  to 
the  fourth  volume  of  the  '  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Grse- 
carum,'    in   which   this  Autun    Inscription    is   edited    (No. 


*  Christliches  Denkmal  von  Autun.     Berlin,  1841. 


134  THE  AUTUN  INSCRirTION. 

9890),  and  found  that  an  almost  exactly  similar  opi- 
nion* was  there  expressed  by  Kirchoff,  the  editor  of  that 
volume. 

iii.  M.  Fr.  Lenormant,  a  well-known  French  antiquary, 
was  the  first,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  who  entered  carefully 
upon  the  investigation  of  the  palseographical  evidence. 
And  upon  this  particular  question  he  expresses  t  himself  as 
follows  :  '  L'allongement  des  caracteres  onciaux  que  nous 
remarquons  dans  I'inscription  de  Pectorius,  regne  partout 
dans  I'etriture  grecque  soignee  du  vf  siecle  ;  moins  abon- 
dant  au  v"  il  est  tres  rare  au  iv",  et  reste  completement 
etranger  au  iii''  excepte  dans  le  dernier  quart,  et  cette  seule 
observation  suffirait  pour  ne  pas  faire  monter  plus  haut  le 
tituhis  d'Autun.'  Writing  in  the  year  1855,  M.  Lenormant 
speaks  of  his  having  put  forth  this  expression  of  his  opinion 
some  time  previously,  adding  that  his  judgment  had  been 
endorsed  by  the  most  eminent  French  authorities  on  ques- 

*  '  ^tatem    tituli    finibus     satis  sit  recentis  notse  et  noviciae  \Kirch- 

certis    circumscribere  licet.     Neque  off  had  an  accurate  pJiotograph  before 

enim  aut  Irenasi  temporibus  haberi  hini\   certum   mihi  quidem  videtur, 

potest  antiquior,  quibusGraeca  Chris-  et  extra  omnem  positum  dubitationis 

tianorum  sacra  primum  ex  Asia  illata  aleam,  titulum  referendum  esse  ad 

sunt  Galliae,  neque  recentior  barba-  seculorum  post  Christum  quarti  vel 

rorum  incursionibus,  quae  factae  sunt  etiam  quinti  tempora.' 

saeculo  post  Christum  quinto  medio.  f  Me'langes  d'Arche'ologie,   t.  iv. 

\He  refers  here,  no  doubt,  to  the  in-  Paris,    1855.     The    earhest   treatise 

vasion  of  Gaul  by  the  Huns  under  to  which   he  refers  is  a  '  Note  sur 

Atiila,  iu  451  a.d.,  when  Autun  is  un  Amulette   Chre'tien  conserve  au 

said  to   have  been  sacked.     But   the  Cabinet  de  Me'dailles,'  in  torn.  iii.  of 

victory  at   Chalons   drove  back  that  the     '  Me'langes    d'Archeologie,'    p. 

invading  sivarni    very  shortly  after-  156.     The  palseographical   data  on 

ii.iards?\     Jam    quum    litteratura    la-  which    he    relies    are    stated    partly 

pidis  nullum  prorsus  servet  veteris  in  the  one  volume,    partly    in    the 

consuctudinis  \estigium,  verum  tr)ta  (Hhcr. 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION. 


135 


tlons  of  epigraphy  and  palaeography.  What  Kirchoff's 
opinion  was  ('  tota  rcccntis  notes  et  novicice—mdliim  prorsits 
servat  veteris  consiietiidinis  vestigium ')  we  have  already 
seen  (note  *,  p.    134). 

iv.  M.  Le  Blant,  who  agrees  with  M.  Lenormant  on  the 
question  of  the  date  to  be  assigned  to  this  Inscription,  is 
obliged  to  admit  that  it  contains  the  germs  of  all  the 
deviations  from  older  usage,  in  point  of  epigraphy,  which 
characterise  the  monuments  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  century. 

V.  M.  Rossignol*  is  the  last  writer  whom  I  will  cite. 
He  sums  up  a  very  able  (yet  unduly  severe)  critique  on 
this  Inscription,  in  the  following  terms  :  '  Les  fautes  de  tout 
genre,  que  nous  y  avons  relevees,  et  qui  accusent  a  la  fois 
I'ignorance  de  I'orthographe,  de  la  syntaxe,  de  la  propriete 
des  mots,  de  la  metrique  et  de  la  prosodie,  obligent  sans 
contredit  a  le  refouler  vers  un  aofe  d'extreme  decadence. 
Nous  n'hesiterons  done  pas,  et  cela  sans  craindre  qu'on 
nous  oppose  le  moindre  des  signes  qui  se  tirent  de  la 
paleographie,  nous  n'hesiterons  pas  a  descendre  I'inscription 
chretienne  d'Autun,  quatre  siecles  environ  plus  bas  que  ne 
I'a  fait  Franz,  c'est  a  dire  jusqu'a  la  seconde  moitie  du  vi* 
siecle  ;  et  nous  ajouterons  qu'apres  etra  arrive  la,  si  nous 


-1-  Revue  Archeologique,    13''  an-  my  own  estimate  of  the  literary  and 

nee,    1856,   p.  65   sqq.     Explication  poetical  merit  of  the  lines  before  us. 

et    Restitution,    &c.,    par    M.    Ros-  Those  who  wish  to  study  this  par- 

signol,  Membre  de  I'lnstitut.     Com-  ticular  question   more  fully,  cannot 

pare  his  letter  to  Padre  Garrucci,  in  do  better  than  refer  to  the  discus- 

the  same  volume,  p.  491  ;  and  Gar-  sion    (a    very   bitter   one,    unfortu- 

rucci's    answer,    in    his    '  Melanges  nately,  but  of  great   literary  merit) 

d'Epigraphie,'    already   quoted.       I  between    M.   Rossignol   and  Padre 

think  it  but  right  to  quote  this  opi-  Garrucci,    in    the    treatises   already 

nion,  although  it  differs  greatly  from  named. 


I  ^6  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 


J) 


pouvions  eprouver  un   scrupule,  ce   serait  d'avoir  fait  tort 
a  I'epoque  plutot  qua  I'inscription.' 

3.  Inteinial  Evidence  of  Date. 

Assuming  now  on  the  concurrent  authority  of  the  emi- 
nent archaeologists  I  have  quoted,  confirmed  as  their  opinion 
is  by  historical  probabilities,  that  the  true  date  of  this  In- 
scription is  about  the  year  400  a.d.,  or,  at  any  rate,  not 
earlier  than  this  time,  a  question  will  occur  to  most  an- 
tiquaries, the  answer  to  which  will  lead  us  to  a  field  of  most 
interesting  inquiry,  which  I  believe  to  present  an  almost 
virgin  soil  for  archaeological  investigation. 

The  question  of  which  I  speak  is  this.  On  examining 
closely  the  language  of  this  Inscription,  and  regarding  it 
merely  as  a  specimen  of  Greek  composition,  there  are  three 
salient  facts  which  at  once  attract  our  attention.  Two  of 
these  we  might  well  expect,  but  the  third  is  one  very  diffi- 
cult to  account  for  at  first  thought.  That  the  doctrines 
implied  in  this  Inscription  should  be  identical  with  those 
implied  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  Apostles, 
this  will  not  surprise  the  student  of  Christian  antiquity. 
That  those  doctrines  should  be  expressed  in  a  form  which 
bears  a  strong  impress  of  the  influence  of  Irenaeus  upon  the 
Christian  terminology  of  the  early  Gallican  Church,  this 
again  will  excite  no  surprise  to  any  who  have  made  a  study 
of  his  great  work,  the  '  Treatise  against  Heresies,'  and 
who  knows  with  what  honour  his  name  was  cherished,  not 
in  Gaul  only,  but  very  widely  throughout  Christendom,  even 
as  early  as  the  fourth  century  of  our  era.  But  what  might 
well  excite  great  surprise  is    this  further  remarkable  fact, 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION.  I  37 

that  while  the  thought  of  this  Inscription  is  Scriptural  and 
Patristic,  yet  that  which  is  most  prominent  in  its  language 
throughout  is  its  thoroughly  Homeric  character.  One  half 
line  (the  close  of  the  ninth,  tojijjSj  ;sg)(^a^/o-^ji/g  QvybSf)  is  taken 
straight  from  Homer,  who  uses  it  in  the  '  Odyssey '  certainly 
(^.  71),  and,  if  my  memory  does  not  mislead  me,  in  the 
'Iliad'"  also,  not  unfrequently.  Such  words,  again,  as 
GsffTTiffio;  (for  the  Scriptural  0s7og  or  ovgccvtog),  a,[jb3^orog  for 
addcvarog,  [jusXirjh^g,  XiXaiofijui,  take  us  at  once  to  Homer.  The 
word  ^vriazo  too,  in  the  last  line,  for  which  there  is  no  gram- 
matical authority  whatever,  is  formed,  evidently,  upon  the 
analogy  of  characteristic  forms  in  Homer,  such  as  o^gzo, 
^YjGio^  hv(T£o.  But  the  most  interesting  proof  of  familiarity 
with  Homeric  diction  has  yet  to  be  noticed.  The  happiest 
conjectural  emandation  of  the  text  of  the  Inscription  was 
one  to  which  M.  Rossignol  was  led  by  his  recollection  of  a 
very  peculiar,  and  wholly  exceptional,  use  of  the  word 
XtXcciOfjbcit  in  the  Eleventh  Book  of  the  *  Odyssey.'  Many 
who  hear  me  will  recollect  the  passage.  It  is  one  in  which 
Ulysses  holds  converse  with  the  shade  of  his  mother  in 
Hades,  and  she  bids  him  return  to  the  light  of  day,  (pocogh 
roir)(jaTa.  Xikuko,  literally  'long  thyself  to  light'  In  thought 
of  this,  M.  Rossignol  conjectured  that  for  the  form  AlAAItO 
(a  mere  solcecism)  which  had  been  given  by  all  the  former 
Editors,  we  should  read  AIAAI€0,  after  the  example  of  that 
(pouglz  XiXccko  {;  long  thyself  to  light')  of  Homer.  He  had 
not  a  photographic  copy  of  the  Inscription  to  refer  to  at  the 
time,  nor  had  he  seen  the  original ;  but  on  subsequent  com- 
parison with  Garrucci's  photograph  he  found  this  conjecture 

*  E.  243,  826  ;  K.  234  ;  A.  607  ;  T.  287. 


138  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

Strongly  confirmed.  I  will  not  now  dwell  upon  this  point  in 
further  detail ;  but  experienced  epigraphists  will  see  at  once, 
that  the  stone  (as  represented  in  the  photograph  before  you) 
presents  peculiar  indications  which  strongly  confirm  this 
conjecture.  What  I  would  rather  point  to  now  is  the 
beautiful  application  thus  made  of  an  exceptional  Homeric 
form,  for  the  expression  of  a  wonderfully  deep  thought. 
Pectorius,  in  the  Inscription  before  us,  uses  this  term  in 
addressing  our  Lord,  praying  to  Him,  as  in  the  moment  of 
death,  or  rather  as  in  the  confidence  of  death  already  passed. 
And  he  invokes  His  presence  beside  him  with  a  word 
which,  more  beautifully  than  any  that  could  be  named, 
sueeests  that  draiuin(r  nio;h  of  Christ,  which  is  but  another 
term  for  the  yearning  of  His  love,  and  the  saving  presence 
of  His  power,  to  them  that  seek  for  Him  in  the  hour  of 
their  need. 

Time  will  not  allow  of  my  dwelling  now  in  detail  upon 
other  evidence.  The  writer  of  this  Inscription,  be  he  who 
he  may,  must  have  had  a  command  of  the  Greek  language 
far  beyond  what  we  should  have  had  reason  to  expect  at  a 
period  so  late  as  the  beginning,  or  the  middle,  of  the  fifth 
century.  There  is  an  intuitive  refinement,  for  example,  in 
his  choice  of  tenses  (as  e.g.  between  the  present  imperative 
and  the  aorist  imperative,  the  present  and  the  aorist  parti- 
ciple), such  as  could  only  be  expected  in  one  who  had  either 
mastered  the  Greek  language  by  very  careful  study,  or  had 
inherited  a  knowledge  of  it,  as  it  were,  by  birthright.  One 
fault  of  prosody  there  is  in  the  third  line,  which  would  not 
pass  uncorrected  at  Eton  in  our  own  day,  though  it  did  so 
at  Autun  some  1 500  years  ago.  But  for  two  other  peculi- 
arities which  would  strike  most  modern  scholars  as  utterly 


DATE  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION.  I  39 

Strange  and  wholly  indefensible,  there  is  more  to  be  said 
(in  palliation,  at  least,  if  nothing  more)  than  would  at  first 
thought  be  supposed.  The  writing  Xird^o(jbs  for  }jrce,^o(jbut, 
and  making  the  final  syllable  short  before  (poug,  would  have 
entailed  upon  some  of  us  in  our  boyhood  very  disagreeable 
consequences.  But  those  who  have  made  a  study  of  epi- 
graphic  Greek,  know  that  no  irregularity  is  more  common 
than  this  substitution  of  a  short  final  s  for  a  short  final  at — 
the  fact  being  that  in  monumental  epigraphs,  both  Greek  and 
Latin,  //ic  spelling  of  ivoi'ds  zvas  determined  by  their  actual 
soiuid  zuhen  pronounced,  more  than  by  conventional  rule,  or 
grammatical  precept.  In  this  way  the  mistakes  in  spelling 
(mistakes,  when  judged  by  the  practice  of  the  professional 
grammarians,  whether  of  ancient  or  of  modern  times)  are 
full  of  interest  to  the  philologist.  And  I  venture  to  think 
that  a  fault  so  glaring  (from  a  scholar's  point  of  view)  as 
\iTa.lp[jjZ  (^coc  TO  6avovrcov,  at  the  end  of  an  hexameter  line,  is  to 
be  taken  as  an  indication  that  the  Greek  of  the  writer  of 
this  Inscription  came  to  him  through  the  ear,  and  not 
through  the  eye  only ;  that  he  was  familiar  with  Greek  as 
an  actually  spoken  language,  as  well  as  with  the  Greek  of 
the  '  Tale  of  Troy  Divine,'  and  the  story  of  him  who 
'  looked  upon  the  cities  of  many  men,  and  came  to  know 
their  mind.' 

But  this  I  will  not  insist  on.  The  only  question  to 
which  I  am  really  concerned  to  furnish  an  answer  is  this  : 
How  are  we  to  account  for  Greek  so  good  as  this  (make 
what  deductions  you  will  from  its  merit  on  account  of  faults) 
in  the  centre  of  Gaul,  as  late  as  the  fifth  century,  or  even  the 
fourth,  of  our  era  ?  The  answer  is  a  very  curious  and 
interesting    one,    specially   interesting   to    me    as    an    Rton 


140  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

master,  and  to  others  present  (as  I  think)  who  are  Eton  or 
pubHc-school  men. 

In  saying  this  I  allude  to  the  fact  that  Autun  was,  in 
the  earlier  centuries  of  our  era,  a  '  French  Eton,'  to  use  a 
phrase  which  we  have  lately  heard — a  place  of  education 
for  the  'golden  youth'  of  Gallia  ^duensis.  The  topic  is 
a  tempting  one,  but  I  must  not  enlarge  upon  it  here.  For 
my  present  purpose  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  we  have  dis- 
tinct evidence  of  the  existence  of  this  school,  and  of  its  re- 
storation to  new  vigour  under  Imperial  auspices,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  And  as  from  that  time  the 
country  was  at  peace  till  the  year  45 1  a.d.,  when  this  part  of 
Gaul  (and  Autun  itself)  was  overwhelmed,  for  a  while  at  least, 
by  the  invading  hordes  of  Attila,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
throughout  that  period,  if  not  afterwards,  this  school  was  still 
maintained.  It  had  been  famous  in  old  times  as  a  school  of 
Greek  learning ;  and  this  monument  is  of  itself,  I  think,  a 
sufficient  proof  of  the  continuance  of  the  old  studies — of 
Homer  more  especially — and  of  the  up-building,  upon  that 
basis,  of  those  great  truths  of  the  Christian  life,  which  find 
expression  in  the  monument  before  us. 


EXTERNAL  APPEARANCE  OF  THE  MONUMENT.  141 


CHAPTER  IV. 

EXTERNAL  APPEARANCE  OF  THE  MONUMENT. 

There  is  yet  one  more  particular  to  be  noticed  in  the 
monument  before  us,  and  this  will  complete  its  archaeological 
history,  with  which  alone  we  are  now  concerned.  I  will 
ask  you  to  observe  for  a  moment  the  outward  appearance 
presented  by  the  marble,  as  far  as  you  can  judge  of  it  from 
the  photograph  before  you. 

One  thing  will,  I  think,  at  once  be  noticed  as  worthy  of 
special  attention,  viz.,  that  at  the  lower  portion  of  the 
marble,  on  the  spectator  s  right,  and,  to  a  smaller  extent,  on 
the  left  also,  a  blank  space  has  been  left,  and  that  with 
evident  design,  many  of  the  letters  being  greatly  crowded 
in  consequence.  For  what  purpose  this  space  was  left,  I 
do  not  think  any  one  will  have  much  doubt,  who  has  studied 
the  monuments  of  the  first  four  centuries,  and  has  observed 
how  frequently  inscriptions  have  beside  them  either  an 
Orante  figure,  or  a  '-Good  Shepherd,'  a  bird,  a  fish,  or  other 
symbolical  representation.  The  letters  of  Paulinus  of  Nola, 
written  about  the  close  of  the  fourth,  or  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century,  show  us,  that,  both  in  baptisteries  and  in 
churches,  in  his  time,  the  practice  obtained,  of  combining 
pictures  in  fresco  or  mosaic,  with  descriptive  verses  immediately 
adjoining  them  (see,  for  an  example,  the  lines  quoted  above, 


14: 


Till':  AUTUN  INSCRir'l'IOX. 


p.  83).  And  the  Roman  catacombs  furnish  us  with  more 
than  one  example  of  a  combination  of  the  IX0TC  symbol 
with  a  sepulchral  inscription,  much  such  as  that  which  I 
believe  to  have  been  exhibited  on  this  monument  when 
first  put  uf)  in  memory  of  the  young  Pectorius.  Take,  for 
example,  the  following,  found  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Pris- 
cilla.* 

MAPITIMA    CEMNH     rAYK€PON<t)AOZOYKAT€    AGS'AZ  t 


ESXEZ    TAPMETAZOY 


nANAGANATONKATAnANT/ 


EYZEBEIAfAPZH     HANTOTE    CEHPOATEI 

MaeiriiMcc  (JiiMTi  y\vy.igh  <pdog  oh  zanXzi-^^ar  Holy   Maritima,    thou   didst   no 

leave  the  day's  sweet  light;  for  thoi 

ZfTVBg  yap   (MTo,  gov  TravaOdvdroi^  ^ara  iravra        hadst  with  thee  Him  who  knows  nc 

death  :  for  thine  own  godliness  eve 
sv(Ti(oiioc  yao  gti  'Trdvrors  (Ji  TTPodyzi.  leads  thee  on. 


In  the  midst  of  these  words,  in  the  place  indicated 
above,  there  is  an  anchor,  with  a  fish  on  either  side,  signifi- 
cant, perhaps,  of  the  presence  of  Christ,  on  the  right  hand 
and  on  the  left,  as  our  sure  and  certain  hope  (anchor)  in 
death  as  in  life. 

But  what  was  the  symbol  7^epresented  on  this  Autun 
marble?     Not  a  fish  only,  if  I  mistake  not;   but  a  mystical 


*  Corpus  Inscr.  t.  iv.  No.  9687. 
f  So   on  the  stone.     Y^artXti-^ac 
is,  of  course,  the  word  intended.     In 


the  third  line,  nPOAT€l  is  writ- 
ten in  like  manner,  by  mistake,  for 

npoArei 


EXTERNAL  ArPKAKANCK  OF  '1111':   MONUM  i;\T. 


■43 


representation,  we  may  at  least  reasonably  conjecture,  such 
as  may  be  seen  on  this  woodcut.  For  the  existence  of 
later  monuments,  such  as  those  here  figured,  containing 
a  modification  of  the  ordinary  Ichtliyography  so  very 
peculiar  as  this  is,  can  hardly  be  accounted  for,  except  on 
the   supposition  of  their  being  reproductions  of  still   older 


llll     I 

ill'  ! 


Ik. 


'"^^;^^ 


•mf/Wf 


monuments,  executed  at  a  time  when  Christian  art  was  still 
inventive,  was  adopting  and  modifying,  for  the  expression 
of  her  own  ideas,  the  older  types  of  art  which  she  found 
ready  to  her  hand.  As  at  Rome  the  '  Shepherd '  and  the 
Orpheus  of  earlier  Greek  art,  had  been  adopted,  and  with 
slight  modifications  made  available  to  Christian  symbolism. 


144 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 


SO  what  more  natural  than  that  in  these  half  Greek  cities  of 
'  Rhodanusia '  (Rhone  land,  or  the  Valley  of  the  Rhone),"" 
connected  as  these  were,  through  Marseilles,  with  the  com- 
merce of  the  East,  an  Eastern  symbol  should  be  adapted  in 
like  manner,  and  the  Fish-orod  of  the 
Phoenician  and  the  Syrian  coast,  such 
as  he  is  here  represented,  be  modified 
into  a  type  such  as  we  see  exhibited  on 
the  columns  of  St.  Germain  des  Pres, 
the  exact  reproduction  in  artt  of  the 
poetical  description,  and  verbal  sym- 
bolism, of  the  Inscription  with  which 
we  are  at  this  moment  occupied  ? 

Thus  far  I  had  written,  a  week  ago,  when  preparing  the 
present  paper.  But  as  I  wrote  it,  and  compared  the  Fish- 
god,  such  as  you  see  him  in  the  woodcut  (No.  i)  before  you, 
with  the  descriptive  lines  of  the  monument  itself,  and  with  the 
remarkable  embodiment  of  them  which  you  see  in  yet  an- 
other (No.  2)  of  those  in  your  hands,  I  could  not  help  feeling 
that  a  link  was  still  wanting  for  the  completion  of  the  chain 
of  presumptive  evidence  (I  could  not  then  claim  more  for  it) 
for  the  existence,  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century  of  our  era,  of 
precisely  such  a  type  as  that  exhibited  on  those  St.  Germain 
pillars.  I  had  a  strong  conviction  that  a  variation  on  the 
ordinary  Ichthus  type,  so  absolutely  unique  as  that  before 


*  So  I  venture  to  interpret  the 
Po^ovovaia  (?  Fo^auovaia)  of  St.  Ire- 
nseus,  adv.  Hser.  lib.  i.  c.  xi.).  Com- 
pare the  article  on  this  word  in 
Smith's  'Diet,  of  G.  and  R.  Geo- 
graphy,'   in     which    this    reference 


is  wanting. 

+  Woodcut  No.  2  (p.  143)  is  here 
given  on  the  authority  of  Cardinal 
Pitra,  '  Spicil.  Solesm.'  tom.  iii.  Tab. 
iii.  No.  6  A. 


EXTERNAL  APPEARANCE  OF  THE  MONUMENT.  I  45 

you,  could  not  have  been  an  invention  of  Christian  art  in  the 
interval  between  the  fourth  century  and  the  thirteenth,  or  in- 
deed an  invention  of  Christian  art  at  all.  For,  in  going  back 
even  to  the  very  earliest  period  to  which  this  can  be  traced, 
we  find  that  Christian  art  was  not  inventive,  but  adaptive ; 
selecting,  among  the  older  types  of  Pagan  art,  those  which 
were  in  any  way  fitted  to  the  expression  of  Christian  ideas, 
and  giving  them,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  a 
baptism  of  regeneration,  in  transferring  them  from  their 
service  to  the  king-dom  of  this  world  to  a  new  service  in  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  Thus  it  was  with  the  Orpheus  of  the 
earliest  Christian  catacombs,  gathering  around  him  even  the 
wild  beasts  of  the  forest  by  the  constraining  attraction  of 
his  heaven-taught  strains,  and  so  not  an  unfit  representation 
of  Him  who  spake  as  never  man  spake,  and  whose  voice  has 
power,  such  as  sweet  music  has,  to  touch  even  the  hardest 
hearts.  And  so,  again,  the  Hermes  Criophoros,  such  as 
Pausanias*  describes  him  at  Tanagra,  whether  personified, 
as  he  was,  in  the  yearly  festival,  by  some  tall  youth,  the 
choicest  among  many,  who  bore  upon  his  shoulders  the 
firstling  of  the  year's  flock ;  or  in  the  marble  of  Calamis,  in 
which  the  same  type  was  embodied,  never  again  to  be 
forgotten — the  one  and  the  other  were  regenerated,  nay, 
endowed  with  immortality,  when  adopted  as  the  expression 
of  that  tenderest  word  of  our  Lord, — '  I  am  the  Good 
Shepherd'  (John,  x.  14)  ;  and  of  that  parable  which  tells  of 
him  who,  losing  one  out  of  a  hundred  sheep,  leaveth  the 
ninety  and  nine,  and  goeth  after  that  lost  one,  until  he 
find  it ;  and  when  he  hath  found  it,  layeth  it  on  his  shoulders 
rejoicing  (Luke,  xv.  3-6). 

*  Pausaniae  Hist.  lib.  ix.  c.  22. 


146  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

With  facts  such  as  these  in  mind,  I  suppose  there  are 
few  archeeologists  who  would  not  agree  with  me  in  thinking, 
that  one  might  count  with  some  certainty  on  finding,  among 
the  older  Pagan  types,  the  counterpart  of  that,  which  is 
implied,  indeed,  by  the  Inscription  now  in  your  hands;  but 
which  survives  to  our  own  time  in  one  monument  only  (I 
believe)  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  viz.,  in  those  pillars 
from  the  Baptistery  of  St.  Germain  des  Pres,  one  of  which 
is  engraved  in  the  woodcut  now  before  us.  (See  No.  2 
above.) 

Where  then,  or  in  what  direction,  was  one  to  make 
search  for  the  symbol  in  question  ?  It  is  unlike  anything 
in  the  later  Greek  or  Roman  art,  and  at  the  first  glance  is 
suggestive  of  an  Eastern  origin  —  ultimately  at  least,  if  not 
immediately,  of  the  East.  But  what  in  common  between 
any  cities  of  the  East,  and  Autun  in  the  centre  of  Gaul  ? 
A  double  connexion  there  was,  though,  antecedently,  one 
might  little  have  anticipated  it.  Connexion  first,  and  a 
direct  connexion,  with  the  old  course  of  Phoenician  trade. 
But  this  is  too  remote  in  time  to  be  relied  upon  with  any 
certainty  in  relation  to  our  present  inquiry.  But  that  line 
of  trade,  following  the  course  which  the  nature  of  the 
country  had  prescribed,  was  in  the  fourth  century,  and  is 
now,  what  it  was  in  the  days  when  the  tin  of  the  Cassi- 
terides  Insulae  was  carried  on  the  backs  of  mules  down  from 
the  Sequana  to  the  Rhone,  and  thence  floated  down  to 
Massalia.  Remembering  this,  it  was  natural  to  make  a  step 
further,  and  to  anticipate,  that,  upon  the  coins  either  of 
Massalia  itself,  or  of  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  with 
which  the  Massaliotes  traded,  would  be  found  the  peculiar 
Ichthus-type  of  which   I  was  in  search.     The  question  was 


EXTERNAL  APPEARANCE  OF  THE  MONUMENT. 


147 


easily  to  be  answered,  or  rather  an  answer  was  easily  to  be 
obtained.  I  made  application  at  the  Coin  Room  of  the 
British  Museum;  and  though  neither  the  coins  of  Marseilles, 
nor  those  of  Phocsea,  the  mother-city  of  Marseilles,  gave 
me  what  I  was  in  search  of,  yet  among  those  of  Cyzlcus, 
which  was  the  great  trading-city  of  Asia  Minor  in  early 
Christian  times,  I  found  the  exact  type,  dating  from  five 
hundred  years  at  the  least  before  the  Christian  era,  which 
we  have  already  seen  reproduced,  in  Christian  symbolism, 
in  the  word-painting  of  our  Autun  Inscription,  and  In  the 
pillars  of  St.  Germain,  one  of  which  (p.  143)  is  also  before 
you. 


I  said  '  the  exact  type',  but  spoke  somewhat  inaccurately 
in  so  describing  it.  For  In  one  very  suggestive  particular 
a  slight  change  was  made,  when  the  old  Pagan  type  was 
adapted  to  Christian  use.  That  type,  in  its  earliest  form, 
was  of  the  East,  and  an  embodiment  probably  of  some  form 
of  the  '  Dagon'  or  '  Fish-God  '  worship.  Possibly,  however, 
it  may  have  been,  even  in  Phoenician  hands,  what  it  after- 
wards became  when  adopted  by  the  Greek  trading  cities  on 
the  coast  of  Asia  Minor — a  symbol  (and  a  very  natural  one 
in  this  last  case)  of  a  seafaring  people  engaged  in   com- 


148  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

mercial  pursuits,  and  for  whom  the  fish,  which  the  Greeks 
exported  to  all  parts  of  the  Mediterranean  coast,  formed 
an  important  article  of  their  trade.  With  this  agrees  the 
comment  of  an  ancient  writer*  as  to  the  virtues  and  the 
significance  of  gems,  who  says  that  '  a  figure  of  a  woman 
holding  (a  bird  and)  a  fish  is  significant  of  trading  busi- 
ness.' But  the  fish  so  held  was  a  dead  fish,  as  you  may 
see  by  the  Cyzican  coins  I  have  engraved  (above,  p.  147). 
But  the  Fish  of  the  Christian  monument  before  you,  even 
as  the  '1%^:)?  of  the  lines  we  have  been  interpreting,  is 
the  living  Ichthus,  in  clinging  to  Whom  we  are  uplifted 
(see  No.  2,  p.  143)  to  light  and  to  new  life,  when  the 
dark  waters  have,  in  all  semblance,  closed  for  ever  over 
our  heads. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  I  think  you  will  be  of  opinion, 
that  the  monument  before  us,  if  we  could  see  it  now  as 
once  it  was,  would  be  found  to  present  a  combination  of 
symbolic  representations,  and  of  verses  having  reference  to 
that  symbolism.  We  should  see  probably,  what  on  the 
columns  of  St.  Germain,  and  on  those  old  coins  before  you, 
we  actually  see,  a  figure  represented  as  combining  two 
nahtres,  half   Ichthus   and    half  man,    and   him,    raj  %2^f«? 


*  '  Cethel,    aut   Veterum    Judae-  who,  however,  finds  no  difficulty  in 

orum   Physiologomm  de  Lapidibus  describing  gems    that   belonged   to 

sententiae.'    (Apud  '  Spicil.  Solesm.'  Alexander  the  Great  and  Galen,  and 

t.  iii.  p.  335.)     This  treatise,  though  who  derives  his  own  Hebrew  name 

a  manifest  imposture,  is  of  ancient  from   a   Latin  word  !]     The  words 

date,  and  has  preserved,  apparently,  to  which  I  refer   in   the   text   are, 

some  tioatmg  traditions  which  might  '  Quando    invenitur   in   Chrysolitho 

otherwise  not  have  reached  us.     [It  femina  habens  in  una  manu  avem, 

professes  to  have  been  written  by  a  in   altera  piscem,   valet   ad   negoti- 

contemporary  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  andum.' 


EXTERNAL  APPEARANCE  OF  THE  MONUMENT. 


149 


a^a^oroc^    'with  hands  close  dinging'   to   a    Hving   Ichthus ; 

while  on  the  other  side,  if  I  mistake  not, 

we   should   see  a  figure,   some   such   as 

that  in  this  woodcut*  (No.  4),  in  which 

the    combination    of  an    Ichthus   and    a 

chalice    are  at    once    suggestive    of  yet 

another  of  those    primitive  symbolisms 

which  I  enumerated  at  the  beginning  of 

this  paper,  and  to  which  there  is  a  mani- 
fest allusion  in  the  sixth  line  of  the  In- 
scription. And  if  we  translate  the  In- 
scription before  us,  not  only  out  of  Greek 

into  English,  but  out  of  the  language  of 

a  now  almost  forgotten  symbolism  into 

that  of  Scripture,  to  which  our  own  ears 

are  more  accustomed,  this,   I   think,  will 

in  some  sort  give  expression  to  the  mind 

of  him  who    wrote   them — wrote   them, 

there  is  strong  reason  for  believing,  on 

the  tomb  of  a  youth  nurtured  in  that  great 

Christian  school  already  alluded  to,  and 

speaking,  as  in  the  name  of  the  departed, 

to  those  whom  he  had  left  on  earth. 

'  Ye  that  have  received  new  birth  from  Christ,  and 
mortal  yet  yourselves  have  now,  from  heavenly  waters, 
a  spring  of  life  that  is  to  immortality,  see  that  a  heart 
of  holy  reverence  be  yours.      Refresh  thy  soul,  beloved 


*  A  small  figure,  in  metal,  pre- 
served at  Autun,  and  dating,  Car- 
dinal Pitra  says,  from  the  eleventh 


century.     See  '  Spicil.  Solesm.'  t.  iii. 
Tab.  iii.  n.  5. 


150  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

one,  with  ever-flowing  waters  of  enriching  wisdom,  and 
receive  the  honey-sweet  food  of  the  Saviour  of  the 
saints.  Eat,  with  a  longing  hunger  in  thine  heart, 
holdine  in  thine  hands  that  Food  which  was  criven  for 
the  life  of  the  world. 

'  On  Christ  I  have  laid  hold,  to  Christ  I  cling.  Let 
the  yearning  of  Thy  love  bring  Thee  nigh  unto  me, 
my  Saviour  and  my  Lord.  Haste  Thee  unto  me,  and 
be  my  Guide,  I  beseech  Thee,  Thou  that  art  the 
Light  of  them  for  whom  the  hour  of  death  Is  passed 

'  And  thou,  my  Father  Aschandeius,  endeared  to 
my  heart  (thou,  too,  sweet  mother,  and  all  I  love  on 
earth),  oft  as  you  look  upon  yon  holy  sign  of  Christ,  so 
often  think  of  me,  Pectorius  your  son.' 

IX0T0C  ov^ccvtov  olyiov  yivog,  riro^i  aii^vco 

Ssff'Tiffiaji'  vhdrojy  rrjv  a^jv,   (piXs,   duX'Tno  ^^vy^^v 
"T})ota'iv  aivdoig  'TrXovrohorov*   'Eo(pir;g, 
^oorrj^og  V  ayioov  pjikiri^ka,  "kdybliotvi  (o^Sffiv. 
''Ec^/s  'Tiivcccov   IX0TN  'iy^cov  '7rccXu[jjaig. 


*  Another    rare   word    occurring  come  upon  them,  became,  so  Zeus- 

in  this  inscription  (viz.  TrXovToCorrjc)  had  willed,   ca/yuoi'ff  ladXoi — ettj)^- 

takes  us  to  the  'Epya  h:al    ll/uepai  of  dovioi,  fvXaKec  Qvrjrwv  ardpojTrwv'  o'l 

Hesiod   (ver.    125),  who   employs  it  pa   <pvXa.(7aov(7iv  re  ciKac  xal  (Tx^rXia 

in  a  remarkable  passage,  to  which  I  epya,  yipa  Etrcrafieroi,  Trarrn  (poiTQvTiQ 

can  well  imagine  the   iip^i^ihaaKaXoQ  lir  alav,  TcXovToZoraC  icai  TOVTO  yipag 

of  the  Autun  school  directing  the  ftarjLXifiov   etrxoy.     See   the    sugges- 

special  attention  of  his  boys.     The  tive  Scholia  on  this  word  in  Gais- 

heroes  of  the  golden  age,  he  says,  ford's   '  Poetae    Min.    Grgeci,'    t.    ii. 

when  death,  like  a  sweet  sleep,  had  p.    121. 


ITS  DOCTRINAL  IMPORT.  151 

IX0TI  Xii^ag  apu^oc'  KtXaiio  liaTroroc   "Eoung 
Y.vOv*  (Jbot  ^y^^rr,^,   az  XtraCpfM,   (^oog  to   Ouvovrco)/. 

'S.vv  (jfjyjrfi  yXvfcspy  %.ui  'Troiaiv  TOiatv  l[jbo7fftv, 
IX0TN  I'bcov  v'iov  \jjVYimo  Wikto^Iov. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  DOCTRINAL  IMPORT  OF  THE  INSCRIPTION. 

I  HAVE  devoted  the  main  part  of  this  inquiry  to  the  archae- 
ology of  this  Inscription,  because  it  is  only  when  this 
is  determined,  and  the  true  text  (or  what  remains  of  it) 
ascertained,  that  we  can  proceed  with  any  certainty  to  draw 
conclusions  from  the  evidence  before  us  in  reference  to 
disputed  questions  of  theology. 

It  is  with  pain  and  repugnance  that  I  deal  with  such 
a  monument  in  its  bearing  upon  matter  of  modern  con- 
troversy. It  seems  to  me,  I  confess,  something  like  dese- 
cration to  put  side  by  side  in  the  same  page  the  beautiful 


*  A  comparison  of  my  own  pho-  recalls    the  XiXaieo   7-a'x<oTa  of  the 

tograph  with  that  of  Garrucci,  which  Odyssey  (see  p.  137).     Other  critics 

was  taken  (from  a  cast)  fifteen  years  have  fancied  the  third  letter  of  this 

ago,  leads  me  to  think  that  EY  CY  line  to  be  a  mutilated    0,    and    I 

(ev  (Tv)  must  have  been  originally  have  therefore  adopted  (though  with 

inscribed  on  the  marble.     But  evdv  some  hesitation)  the  reading  above 

is  better  suited  to  the  context,  and  given. 


152  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

expressions  of  primitive  belief  to  which  we  have  just  been 
listening,  and  the  comments  upon  that  language  (not  to 
say  the  utter  perversions  of  it)  to  which  some  modern 
theologians  have  had  recourse.  But  it  may  be  well  to 
show,  by  a  striking  example,  such  as  the  comments  upon 
this  monument  will  afford,  how  easy  it  is  for  men  to  import 
into  ancient  monuments  exactly  what  they  wish  to  find 
there.  We  may  thus  enforce  what  is  in  these  days  a 
greatly  needed  lesson,  that  of  profound  distrust  of  mere 
assertions  made  by  theological  partisans  as  to  what  the 
evidence  of  antiquity  is.  For,  as  you  will  see,  even  men 
of  considerable  learning  begin  by  deceiving  themselves  as 
to  the  nature  of  that  evidence,  and,  having  done  so,  it  is 
but  natural  that  they  should  go  on  to  deceive  others,  who 
are  content  to  accept  the  witness  of  antiquity  on  the 
authority  of  others,  instead  of  requiring  it  to  be  set  out 
in  full  before  their  own  eyes. 

You  have  the  means  of  judging  what  that  evidence 
is  as  regards  the  monument  now  in  your  hands  ;  and  you 
will  probably  be  somewhat  surprised  to  hear  the  enumera- 
tion of  the  following  points  of  doctrine,  or  of  ritual  observ- 
ance involving  doctrine,  for  which  it  is  supposed  to  give 
the  strongest  evidence,  and  that  dating  from  the  '  second 
century '  of  our  era.  M.  Le  Blant,  an  eminent  French 
antiquary,  quotes  Padre  Secchi  (a  Roman  Jesuit)  as  finding 
here,  amongst  other  things,  '  la  vtention  dii  ccsiir*  sacrS  de 
Jhus  Christ  ....   la  presence  r^elle  .  ...  la  communion 

*  It  is  painful  to  write  in  detail  question   by  controversialists,    may 

upon  such  subjects.     Those,   how-  be    referred    to    Cardinal    Perrone, 

ever,  who  may  be  inclined  to  wonder  '  Praelect.  Theolog.'  tom.  v.  p.  301. 
why   this    should   be   brought   into 


ITS  DOCTRINAL  IMPORT.  I  53 

sotis  tine  settle  espece  .  ...  la  priere  des  inorts  retemis  ait 
ptirgatoire!  And  to  this  I  may  add,  that  Padre  Garrucci 
finds  in  the  same  monument  conclusive  evidence  of  prayer 
offered  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  beHef  in  Transubstanti- 
ation. 

I  refer  to  this  last  writer  the  rather  because  he  is  a  well- 
known  antiquary  of  great  repute,  and  a  man  of  very  great 
erudition.  That  he  is  well  able  to  defend  himself,  if  in 
any  respect  I  shall  do  him  wrong,  his  correspondence  with 
M.  Rossignol  gives  good  proof  And  if  I  seem  now  to 
invite  controversy  with  him  as  to  the  true  interpretation  of 
this  monument,  it  is  because  I  will  not  doubt  that  he  really 
desires  that  the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  should 
be  established  ;  and  because  I  know  that  he  is  capable  of 
conducting  even  theological  controversy  without  forgetting, 
as  too  many  do,  the  respect  that  is  due  to  the  cause  of 
truth  in  which  he  is  eng-agfed. 

In  the  eighth  line  then  of  this  Inscription  he  reads  as 
follows  :— - 

Ey  liXd)  {or  iihu)^   M^r?j^,   ai  XiTd^o^Lai,   (pSJg  to  Savovrcov, 

and  this  line  he  interprets  (ict  devota  tnetite  accipiam,  Maler, 
oro  te,  Iticem  morttwrtmt) :  '  I  pray  thee,  Mother,  that  with 
devout  mind  I  may  receive  the  light  of  the  dead,'  i.e.  (as 
appears  from  his  previous'"  comment),  '  That  I  may  devoutly 
receive  Him  [viz.  Jesus  Christ]  who  is  the  Light  of  the 
dead.' 

I   need   hardly   be  at  pains  to   point  out  the   repeated 

*  '  Pectorius  prend  la   parole  et      dans  ses  mains  ;  il  prie  la  Mere  du 
prononce  des  actes  fort  tendres  dans      Sauveur.' 
le   desir   de   recevoir  Je'sus    Christ 


154  'i'l^l^  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

mistakes  of  erammar  in  which  the  writer  has  here  involved 
himself,  simply  because,  writing-  as  he  does  from  the  point 
of  view  of  modern  Romanism,  he  expects  antecedently  to 
find  Mary- worship  in  every  ancient  monument.  In  order 
to  find  evidence  of  this  here,  he  writes  ii\oo  {or  zihoo)  as  a 
form  of  the  subjunctive,  apparently  in  entire  forgetfulness 
that  if  the  subjunctive  were  to  be  employed  here  at  all 
it  would  be  'ilco,  or  'iXco,  without  the  augment.  And  so  by 
assuming,  without  the  slightest  authority  whatever,  that 
Mt^tti^,  '  Mother,'  would  mean  in  the  second  century  (to 
which  he  refers  the  monument)  the  Virgin  Mary,  addressed 
simply  as  '  Mother '  in  prayer,  he  contrives  to  import  into 
this  monument  what  no  one  but  himself  has  ever  been  able 
to  see  there ;  proposing,  with  this  view,  a  reading  of  the 
text,  which  no  one  with  the  slightest  pretence  to  a  know- 
ledge of  Greek  ever  has  endorsed,  or  ever  will. 

What  is  really  instructive  in  this  matter,  is  the  notable 
instance  here  before  us  of  the  way  in  which  the  defence 
of  modern  Romanism  rests  upon  inexact  scholarship  in 
one,  upon  defective  archaeological  knowledge  in  another. 
Padre  Garrucci's  forced  introduction  of  prayers  to  the 
Virgin  Mary  into  this  monument,  at  the  cost  of  all  exact- 
ness of  grammatical  expression,  and  in  direct  contradiction 
to  the  evidence  of  antiquity,  as  to  the  feeling  of  the  first 
four  centuries  in  reference  to  the  blessed  mother  of  our 
Lord,  is  a  fitting  pendant  to  Dr.  Northcote's  discovery  of 
'  the  Virgin  Mary'  side  by  side  with  'the  Good  Shepherd' 
in  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla,'"'  or  Mr.  Brownlow's  demonstra- 

*  As  to  this  see  above,  p.   17  ;  and  for  Mr.  Brownlow's  Latin,   foot- 
note, p.   92. 


ITS  DOCTRINAL  IMPORT, 


^55 


tion  of  the  Petrine  succession  of  the  Roman  Bishops  by 
an  utter  perversion  of  the  Latin  Hnes  which  he  quotes. 
All  the  three  write  in  perfect  good  faith  ;  but  one  in  forget- 
fulness  of  Greek  grammar,  another  of  the  most  elementary 
rules  of  Latin  construction,  and  yet  another  (Dr.  Northcote) 
under  an  entire  ignorance  as  to  the  real  appearance  of  the 
monument  which  he  edits,  and  which  in  editing  he  un- 
wittingly misrepresents. 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  deal  seriously  with 
anything  so  absurd  as  the  attempt  to  prove  a  belief  in 
Transubstantiation  from  the  symbolical  language  of  this 
Inscription. 

But  there  will  be  some  real  advantage,  perhaps,  in  well 
weighing  another  assertion,  which  is  made  not  only  by 
Roman  Catholic  writers  of  all  kinds,  but  by  some  among 
ourselves,  that  this  monument  presents  the  most  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  as  being 
held  either  in  the  second  century  (according  to  the  date 
they  assign)  or  in  the  fourth  or  fifth,  which,  for  reasons 
already  given,   I  myself  believe  to  be  its  true  date. 

If  for  '  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence '  we  would  be 
content  to  say  '  a  doctrine  of  Real  Presence,'  we  should  be 
so  far  nearer  the  truth,  that  we  should  recognise  a  fact, 
which  is  plain  to  all  accurate  students  of  theology,  that 
there  is  more  than  one  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. 
But  if  we  would  avoid  the  anachronism  of  importing  into 
antiquity  controversial  phrases  of  comparatively  modern 
theology,  utterly  unknown  to  the  early  Church,  what  we 
should  rather  say  would  be  this,  that  the  monument  before 
us  gives  expression  throughout  to  those  ideas  of  the 
Spiritual    Presence   of  Christ,  as   distinct  from  a   Corporal 


156  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

Presence,  upon  which  the  great  contemporary  teachers 
of  the  Church,  both  in  East  and  West,  most  strongly 
uisisted  at  the  time  from  which  this  monument  dates. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood  in  saying  this.  I  freely 
admit  that  one  expression  of  the  text,  '  Eat,  hungering, 
holding  Ichthus  in  thy  hands,'  is  in  itself  not  inconsistent 
with  any  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  whatever,  even  the 
most  carnal  and  Capernaitic  that  can  be  imagined.  But 
I  maintain  no  less  strongly,  that  the  evidence  already 
alleged  of  the  very  wide  application  of  the  symbolism  of 
the  word  Ichthus,  makes  it  clear  that  the  language  of  this 
Inscription  is  also  perfectly  consistent  with  the  most 
spiritual  view  of  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  this  Holy 
Sacrament  that  any  can  hold.  And  the  real  question 
suggested  by  this  monument  is  not  one  to  be  determined 
by  reference  to  the  controversial  terms  of  modern  divinity, 
but  by  reference  to  the  language  of  the  great  teachers  of  the 
Church  in  the  first  four  centuries  of  our  era. 

And  it  is  a  strange  assertion  to  make,  but  yet  it  is  a 
perfectly  true  one,  as  far  as  my  own  reading  enables  me 
to  judge,  that  while  bulky  volumes  have  been  written  of 
late  years  professing  to  set  forth  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers 
concerning  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ment of  His  Body  and  Blood,  all  that  the  Fathers  really 
teach  concerning  the  nattire  of  Christ's  Presence  is  passed 
over  in  the  7nost  absolute  silence.  Pages  after  pages  of 
quotations  from  the  Fathers  (and  even  these  often  gravely, 
though  of  course  unintentionally,  misrepresented)  are 
brought  forward,  in  which  not  one  word  is  said  about 
Presence,  still  less  about  '  Real  Presence,'  or  '  Real  Objec- 
tive  Presence '    (a   coinage  of  the    last   fifty    years)  ;    and 


TEACHING  OF  THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  45O  A.D.  I  57 

the  very  fact  that  many  of  the  Fathers,  both  in  East  and 
West,  have  treated  ex  pi^ofesso  on  the  subject  of  Christ's 
Presence  is  in  no  way  whatever  so  much  as  noticed.  And 
this  being  so,  I  think  that  I  may  make  a  real  contribution 
to  the  Patristic  evidence  hitherto  alleged  on  this  disputed 
question,  if  I  take  this  opportunity  shortly  to  state  what 
their  doctrine  on  this  particular  question  of  Christ's 
Presence  really  is. 


CHAPTER   VI. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  THE  YEAR  45O  A.D. 
CONCERNING  THE  NATURE  OF  CHRISt's  PRESENCE. 

Before  quoting  in  detail  the  language  of  the  Fathers,  it 
may  be  well  to  say  a  few  words  as  to  the  earlier  use  of 
terms  of  Presence,  both  in  classical  writers  and  in  Holy 
Scripture. 

For  classical  usage  it  will  be  enough  to  say,  that  words 
importing  Presence  were  used  with  every  variety  of  meaning, 
whether  of  physical  and  material,  or  of  figurative  and  spiritual 
Presence  (in  this  including  the  Presence  of  Power).  Thus, 
on  the  one  hand,  Horace  speaks  of  a  Roman  Emperor 
being  regarded  as  a  present  God  (/.  e.  as  the  context  shows, 
present  upon  earth),  in  contradistinction  to  the  Father  of  the 
Gods  spoken  of  as  reigning  in  heaven ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  hear  Cicero  speaking  of  always  having  been 
present  to  Deiotarus  zvhen  himself  absent  {absenti  Deiotaro 


158  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

semper  ad/zii),  i.  e.  of  his  alvvavs  having  siipported  his 
interests  (been  to  him  a  present  help)  in  the  Senate  and 
Forum,  when  he  was  not  on  the  spot  to  support  his  own 
cause.  And  the  use  oi  pra:sentia  in  the  sense  oi  power  ^  is 
famihar  to  scholars ;  as,  for  example,  in  that  expression  of 
Ovid's,  '  tanta  est  prcesentia  veri^  '  such  is  the  pozver  of 
truth.' t 

Passing  on  to  the  usage  of  Holy  Scripture,  we  find  in 
an  expression  employed  by  St.  Paul  a  remarkable  antici- 
pation of  the  Patristic  language  which  I  am  about  to  allege. 
Writing  to  the  Corinthians  (i  Cor.  v.  i  sqq.)  concerning  a 
notorious  offender,  he  speaks  of  himself  as  being  absent  in 
body  from  those  Corinthians,  but  present  in  spirit  with  them 
{airoov  TOO  aoji^iari — va^m  rcu  TrviviJbccri) ;  and  again  adds,  '  When 
ye  are  gathered  together,  with  my  spirit,  together  with  the 
poiver  [avv  ry  })vvaiMii)  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  [I  have 
already  determined]  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan,'  &c. 
&c.  Presence  in  spirit  is,  in  St.  Paul's  mind,  not  inconsistent 
with  absence  in  body. 

With  thus  much  premised  as  to  the  use  of  terms  of 
Presence  in  classical  writers  and  in  Scripture,  I  proceed  to 
the  question  now  more  immediately  before  us,  viz.  the 
teaching  of  the  early  Fathers,  in  East  and  West,  concerning 
the  Presence  of  our  blessed  Lord. 

And  I  will  begin  with  the  Greek  Fathers,  seeing  that  in 
their  language  we  find  most  faithfully  reflected  not  only  the 

*  Comp.    Cyril.   Hieros.   Catech.  {more  effectual)  ullum  .  .  .  auxilium 

XV.  p.  165  :  6  EtQ  kviavTOQ  Iv  J  avUi-  venit.'     And  Pliny,  H.  N.  xxi.   20, 

>/  Tvapovcria   avTuv   (augebitur  ipsius  §  86,   '  Idem  (melissophyllon)   prge- 

potcntia :  Interpres  Lat.).  sentissimum  est  contra  ictus  earum 

t  Comp.  Georg.  ii.  127,  'Saporem  {sc.  apmn)  vesparumque.' 
Felicis   mali,    quo    non    proesentius 


TEACHING  OF  THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  450  A.D.      I  59 

general  doctrine,  but  the  actual  terminology,  of  primitive 
Christian  revelation,  as  it  had  originally  been  taught  by  the 
Apostles  and  Prophets  of  the  New  Covenant. 

And  this  first  we  may  note,  that  the  phrase  jj  'noLDovaia. 
rov  Xpiarov,  '  the  Presence  of  Christ,'  had  in  the  early  P^athers 
a  distinct  technical  meanins:  when  used  without  further  li- 
mitation.  It  was  used  of  the  Presence  of  Christ  upon  earth 
— that  Presence  being  either  in  the  period  which  intervened 
between  the  Nativity  and  the  Ascension,  a  Presence  wJiich 
is  past ;  or  of  that  Presence  zvhicli  shall  be  hereafter,  when 
He  who  ascended  into  heaven  shall  come  again  in  like 
manner. 

Hence,  in  the  language  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  there  are 
two  '  Presences  '  *  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and  two  '  comings 
down '  t  from  heaven  :  one  at  the  time  of  His  Incarnation  ; 
the  other,  yet  future,  when  He  shall  come  in  glory.  One 
of  these   is  the  former  \  Presence  (;;  'k^oti^ci  Tcu^ovtyicc,  Cyr. 

*  For  illustrations  of  what  is  above  tion  (possibly  such)  is  in  lib.  i.  c.  i., 

stated  see  Justin  Mart.  'Dial,  cum  where  he  speaks  of  the  a /^ojopooiio-a 

Tryph.'  p.  208,  9,  Ivo  irapovcriai  tuv  as  being  healed    vtto   riig  Trapovtrias 

XpioTOu    Trpo£(pT]Tivoi'TO    yevrjrToi.iei'ai,  rod   2wr>7poc.      This,  however,  is  but 

fjiia  jjikv  kv  »}  iraOrjToc  i^al  arifioQ  kcu  a  slight  modification  of  the  ordinary 

a£iS))g    (payt'ia-erai,    7)   ^e    erepa    kv    »/  meaning.      For   further    illustrations 

Ev^oi,oq  KOI  KpiT))Q  TravTiov  sXeutTETai.  of  the  word  see  Origen  in  Joan.  t.  i. 

And  Cyril.  Hieros.  Catech.  xv.  (ad  p.  8.    Constitt.  Apost.  lib.  viii.  §  12 

init.),    XpifTTOv    Trapovfriay    KarayyiX-  (rfic    fj.£X\oviTi]c    avrov    Sevripag    tto- 

XofiEy,   oil  fiiai'  juoi'OJ',  liXXa  Kcii   tev-  povcriac). 

ripav    rijg    ivporipaQ    ttoXv    KuXXiora.  f   AnrXaJ  a'l   mdodoi,  fxia   ?;  arrvix- 

'H  ^tv  yap  inroixoviig  f<x^''  vTr6Eeit,ii',  <pai'))g   i]   Mg   IttI   ttokov'  Kal  hevTspa   >/ 

1]  he  deiag  f3a(nXeiag  (pipei  tu  hiuCTj/xa.  e7ri(pa)'t)g,  //  fiiXXovaa.    Cyril.  Catech. 

The  term  Trapovnia  is  frequently  used  xv. 

by  Irenseus,  and,  with  one  exception,  X  Comp.    S.    Irenfeus  adv.   Haer. 

in  one  or  other  of  the  senses  indi-  iii.  c.  xii.     He  says  that  the  Ethi- 

cated  in  the  text  above.    The  excep-  opian    eunuch  was   brought  to  his 


l6o  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

Catech.    xv.    ad   init),    the    other,    the    second    Presence* 

(^    l&uri^a, }jv    Tr^oalozaJiJbzv),    for    which    we    are    still 

looking,  at  His  coming  to  judgment.  (?j  'Tra^ovaia,  rov  Ky^/oy  yj 
rov  Koaf/jou   Gvvrikaa.      Ibid,  in  fin.) 

This  mere  use  of  terms  constitutes  in  itself  a  strong 
presumption  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Greek  Fathers  in 
early  times  concerning  the  Presence  of  our  Lord  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  must  have  been  a  very  different  one  from 
that  now  taught  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  by  some 
among  ourselves.  But  let  us  proceed  now  to  consider 
something  much  more  definite  ;  their  express  teaching  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  Christ's  Presence. 

And  here  we  shall  find  the  Fathers,  both  of  East  and 
West,  in  full  accord  In  teaching,  that  in  the  interval  between 
the  first  and  the  second  Advent  (or  Presence,  Toc^ovaici)  of 
our  Lord,  there  is  a  manner  in  which  He  is  present  upon 
earth,  and  a  manner  in  which  He  is  absent.  He  is  absent, 
so  they  expressly  teach,  in  respect  of  His  human  nature ; 
He  is  present  in  respect  of  His  divine  nature.  He  is 
absent  in  respect  of  that  which  is  in  one  place  only,  viz. 
in  respect  of  His  human  Body  present  now  in  heaven  ; 
He  is  present  in  respect  of  that  which  is  ubiquitous,  viz. 
His  divine  nature,  wherein  He  is  one  with  the  Father 
and  the   Holy  Ghost. 

None    can    speak    more    clearly    upon    this   point  than 

own  country  to  preach  there  what  i.  c.  ii.  :  Tj)v  (k  rihv  ohpavwv  iv  r^ 

he  had  himself  beheved,    the  One  2o^jj    rov    IlaT-poe   Trapovirlay  avTov, 

God  who  had  been  proclaimed  by  k.  t.  X.     In  this  use  of  wapovala  the 

the  Prophets,  and  that  tovtov    tov  Greek  Fathers  follow  the  language 

vlov    rriv    Kara   avQpwirov   ij^rj   TreiroL-  of  Holy  Scripture,   as    in    2    Thess. 

ijadai  irapovaiav.  ii.  8  ;   Jam.  V.   7    (and  8)  ;    2   Pet. 

*  Comp.  S.  Irenaeus  adv.  Hseres.  iii.  4,  &c. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  45O  A.D.      161 

St.  Augustine.  Commenting*  on  those  words  of  our 
Lord,  '  The  poor  ye  have  always  with  you,  but  Me  ye 
have  not  alway'  (John,  xi.)  ;  or,  as  he  renders  them,  'Me 
ye  zvill  not  have  alway '  {iion  semper  Jiabebitis),  he  writes 
as  follows  :  — 

*  Let  o^ood  men  crlve  ear  unto  that  He  saith,  but  let 
them  not  thereby  be  troubled.  For  it  is  of  bodily  Pre- 
sence that  He  spake  this  ("  Me  ye  will  not  have  alway"). 
For  in  respect  of  His  majesty,  in  respect  of  His  provi- 
dential care,  in  respect  of  His  unspeakable  and  invisible 
grace,  in  respect  of  all  these  is  that  fulfilled  which  He 
spake,  saying,  "  Behold,  I  am  with  with  you  alway,  unto 
the  end  of  the  world."  But  in  respect  of  the  Flesh  which 
the  Word  took  on  Him,  in  respect  of  that  (Humanity) 
whereby  He  was  born  of  a  Virgin,  seized  by  the  hands 
of  Jews,  fastened  to  a  tree,  taken  down  from  a  cross, 
wrapped  in  linen  cloths,  laid  in  a  tomb,  and  manifested 
in  His  rising  therefrom,— in  respect  of  all  these,  "  Me  ye 
shall  not  have  alway."  And  wherefore  this  ?  Because, 
in  respect  of  bodily  Presence  {secundtun  prcescntiam  cor- 
poris), He  went  in  and  out  with  His  Disciples  during 
the  space  of  forty  days,  and  then,  while  they  followed 
Him  in  sight,  though  not  in  person.  He  ascended  into 
heaven.     And  He  is  not  here,  for  He  is  there  :   He  sitteth 

*  Tractat.  in  Joan.  L.     With  this  erat.'    And  with  a  further  distinction 

compare  Tractat.  Ixviii.  :   '  A  quibus  still,  Sermo  ccclxi.   cap.   vii.  :    '  Se- 

Homo  abcedebat,   Deus  non  dere-  cundum   prajsentiam   pulchritudinis 

linquebat :  et  idem  ipse  Homo  ac  et  divinitatis  sure  semper  cum  Patre 

Deus.      Ergo  et  ibat  per  id   quod  est :    secundum   prcesentiam    corpo- 

Homo  erat,  et  manebat  per  id  quod  ralem  jam  supra  crelos  ad  dexterani 

Deus  erat  :  ibat  per  id  quod  uno  loco  Patris  est :  scciuidum  prascntiam  vcro 

erat,  manebat   per  id   quod   ubicjue  fidei  in  omnibus  Christianis  est.' 

M 


l62  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

at  the  right  hand  of  God, — and  He  is  here,  for  by  the 
Presence  of  Divine  majesty  He  hath  not  departed  from 
us.  Or,  again,  we  may  give  answer  thus  :  —  In  regard  of 
the  Presence  of  Divine  majesty  we  have  Christ  alway 
with  us ;  in  respect  of  the  Presence  of  the  Flesh  (secnndzcm 
p.  carnis)  rightly  was  it  said  unto  His  Disciples,  "■  Btit  me 
ye  will  not  have  alway!'  For  the  Church  possessed  Him 
but  a  few  days  in  respect  of  the  Presence  of  (His)  Flesh ; 
now  by  Faith  she  holdeth  Him,  with  the  eyes  she  seeth 
Him  not' 

Precisely  to  the  same  effect  are  his  comments  *  upon 
yet  another  passage  of  the  same  Gospel,  on  the  words 
(John,  xiv.  28),  'I  go  away,  and  I  come  again  unto  you.' 

'  As  God  He  was  not  to  leave  those  whom,  as  Man, 
He  was  to  leave;  and  in  Him,  the  one  Christ,  God  and 
Man  are  united.  Therefore  was  He  to  go  away  in  regard 
that  He  was  Man,  and  abide  in  regard  that  He  was  God. 
He  was  to  go  away  by  that  \iiatnre\  zuhich  zvas  in  one 
place  [only~] ;  He  zoas  to  remain  by  that  which  was  in  every 
placei 

It  may  be  objected,  that  in  this  that  he  here  says  there 
is  no  special  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  that  he 
is  speaking  only  in  general  terms  of  the  laws  of  Christ's 
Presence  generally,  and  that  he  would  have  used  very 
different  language  had  this  subject  been  in  question.  To 
this  I  would  reply  (to  the  first  objection),  that  His  language, 
even  if  it  proved  nothing  more,  would  at  least  suffice  to 
show  this,  that  St.  Augustine's  dogmatic  language  con- 
cerning the  general  law  of  Christ's  Presence  is  the  very 

*  Tractat.  in  Joan.  Ixviii.     See  note  in  preceding  page. 


TEACHING  OF  TIIK  FATHERS  BEFORE  450  A.D.  1 63 

reverse  of  that  which  a  Roman  Divine  would  naturally  use 
now,  and  which  certain  aniong  ourselves  actually  do 
use.  That  any  such,  when  confronted  with  the  lanuuaee 
I  have  quoted,  would  be  able  to  explain  it  away,  and  to 
say  that  in  a  sense  they  could  adopt  it  as  their  own,  I 
do  not  of  course  doubt.  But  that  is  a  very  different  matter. 
What  I  maintain  is,  that  language  such  as  this  is  perfectly 
consistent  and  natural  in  the  mouth  of  an  English  Church- 
man ;  and  that  it  would  be  neither  natural  nor  consistent 
in  the  mouth  of  one  who  holds  the  '  Real  Presence '  in  the 
sense  in  which  it  has  been  taught  for  some  centuries  past 
in  the  Roman  Church,  and  by  some,  of  quite  late  years, 
among  ourselves. 

But  I  can  say  more  than  this.  To  the  second  of  the 
two  objections  above  supposed  (viz.  that  St.  Augustine 
would  speak  very  differently  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  had  been  prominently  before  him)  I  would  reply, 
that  we  have  distinct  evidence  leading  to  a  directly  opposite 
conclusion.  For  in  another  passage,*  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  the  thought  of  the  last  Supper  of  our  Lord, 
and  of  the  Institution  of  the  Holy  Sacrament,  he  draws 
the  very  same  distinction  which  to  our  own  Divines  has 
long  been  habitual,  between  a  corporal  (or  bodily)  and  a 
spiritual  Presence.  '  After  the  Supper,  being  close  now 
to  His  Passion,  He  spake  unto  His  disciples  as  about 
to  go  away  and  to  leave  them  in  regard  of  bodily  (or 
"  corporal ")  Presence,  but  zuit/i  a  spiritual  Presence  to  be 

*  Tractat.    in   Joan.   xcii.  :  '  Do-  et  relicturus  eos  prresentia  corporal! 

minus  Jesus  in  sermone  quem  lo-  cum  omnibus  autem  suis  usque  in 

cutus  est  discipulis  suis  post  coenam,  consummationeni  SKCuli  futurus  prre- 

proxinius    Passioni,   tancjuam   iturus  sentia  spirituali.' 


164  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION, 

with    all    them    that    are     His,    even    to    the    end    of  the 
world.' 

And  as  showingf  further  what  was  the  mind  of  St. 
Augustine  on  this  matter,  I  will  refer  to  yet  another 
passage,  in  the  treatise  against  Faustus.  (Lib.  xx.  cap.  21.) 
He  is  there  indignantly  rejecting  the  calumny  of  certain 
Manichaeans  who  spoke  of  Christians  as  offering  sacrifices 
to  martyrs.  He  says  that  they  offer  sacrifice,  it  is  true  ; 
but  it  is  to  God,  and  after  that  manner  of  sacrifice  which 
in  the  manifestation  of  the  New  Testament  God  had  pre- 
scribed. And  after  quoting  Ps.  xlix.  23,  '  Sacrificium 
laudis  glorificabit  me,  et  illic  via  est  ubi  ostendam  illi 
salutare  meum,'  he  adds  :  '  The  Flesh  and  Blood  of  this 
Sacrifice  before  the  coming  of  Christ  was  set  forth  in 
anticipation  by  means  of  victims  of  resemblance ;  in  the 
Passion  of  Christ  it  was  rendered  (unto  God)  in  very 
reality ;  now,  after  the  Ascension  of  Christ,  it  is  celebrated 
by  a  Sacrament  of  Memorial.'  *  Hujus  sacrificii  caro  ac 
sanguis  ante  adventum  Christi  per  victimas  similitudinum 
promittebatur ;  in  passione  Christi  per  ipsam  veritatein 
rcddebatiir ;  post  ascensum  Christi  per  sacramentum  me- 
morise celebratur.'*     The  reality,  or  truth  (veritas)  of  that 

*  This,    like   other   passages    al-  The  shadow  in  the  Law,  the  image 

ready  alleged,  is  passed  over  alto-  in  the  Gospel,  the  truth  in  the  hea- 

gether  in  the  '  Catense '  of  Patristic  vens.'     ['  Umbra   in  lege,  imago  in 

authorities  which  have  appeared  of  cvangelio,  Veritas  in  ca;kstibus.''\  And 

late  years.    With  it  compare  St.  Am-  see   the   rest   of  the    passage   con- 

brose,  '  De  Cain  et  Abel,'  i.  5,  §  19  :  cerning    Christ's    offering    Himself, 

'Those  things  we  must  desire  wherein  here  in    image,    there  in   the  truth^ 

is  perfection,  wherein  is  the  truth  where  He  intercedeth  for  ns  as  an 

{veritas).     Here  is  the  shadow,  here  Advocate  with  the  Father.     [I  quote 

the  image,  there  the  truth  {veritas).  this  last  the  rather  because  it  is,  as 


TEACHING  OF  THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  450  A.D.  I  65 

Sacrifice  is  to  be  found  in  the  Passion  of  our  Lord ;  the 
memorial  of  it  in  the  Holy  Communion. 

It  will  hardly  be  said,  I  think,  that  these  dogmatic 
distinctions  thus  made  by  St.  Augustine  are  such  as  to 
harmonise  with  Tridentine  teaching  concerning  the  Real 
Presence.  But  let  us  hear  yet  another  great  doctor  of 
the  Western  Church,  who  takes  up  precisely  the  same 
thoup-ht  concerning  the  laws  of  Christ's  Presence  as  that 
to  which  St.  Augustine  gives  such  pointed  expression. 

Leo  the  Great,  in  his  *  Sermo  de  Ascens.  Domini,'  c.  ii., 
thus  writes  on  this  question  : — '  Son  of  Man,  [and  also] 
Son  of  God,  He  made  Himself  known  after  a  more  ex- 
cellent and  mystical  manner  {excellentius  et  sacratius  innottdt) 
when  He  returned  unto  the  glory  of  the  Father;  and  after 
an  ineffable  mode  began  to  be  more  present  by  His  Divine 
nature,  Who,  in  respect  of  His  humanity,  became  more 
distant  from  us.'  '  Ineffabili  modo  coepit  esse  divinitate  prce- 
sentior,  qid  f actus  est  humanitate  longinqtuor! 

And  when  from  the  Western  Doctors  we  turn  once 
more  to  the  Greek  Fathers,  we  find  precisely  the  same 
language  used.  Hear,  for  instance,  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
He  is  commenting,  like  St.  Augustine,  already  quoted,  on 
St.  John's  Gospel,  and  dwelling,  as  he  had  done,  upon  the 
difference  between  our  Lord's  local  Presence,  in  respect  of 
His  humanity,  a  Presence  which  is  now  in  heaven,  and  His 


far  as  I  know,  the  only  passage  in  immediately  follow ;  and  his  con- 
all  the  Fathers  which  speaks  of  our  trast  between  '  here  in  image '  (or 
Lord  as  'offering  Himself  in  hea-  likeness),  'there  in  the  truth,'  is  as 
ven.  The  sense  in  which  he  uses  unlike  that  of  modern  Roman  tlieo- 
the  expression  '  offert  se '  is,  how-  logy  as  possible. 
ever,    indicated  by  the  words    that 


I  66  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

Presence  of  Divinity,  or  Presence  of  Power,  whereby  He  is 
even  now  present  with  all  them  that  are  His.  '  Though* 
He  is  absent  from  us  in  the  flesh,  seeing  that  He  hath 
gone  away  from  us  and  departed  unto  God  the  Father,  yet 
by  His  divine  power  He  compasseth  the  whole  universe, 
and  is  closely  present  unto  those  that  love  Him.'  Ei'  Kal 
d-7n(Triv  riyucov  ry  (xa^yJl,  r^v  -Troog  0sov  (7TSiXd[jjivog  a7roh]^(jjiocv,  uXk'  ovv 
rrj  Oiia  ^vvcc[Mi  'Trzoii'Tni  ra  GviJjTTUvra,,  Kca  (rvi/jTagsan  ro7g  aydicuxjiv 
avrov. 

If  it  be  asked  how  language  such  as  this  can  be  recon- 
ciled with  those  many  passages  in  which  the  Fathers  speak, 
in  the  same  way  as  Holy  Scripture  speaks,  of  the  Bread 
which  we  break  being  the  Body  (or  the  Flesh)  of  Christ, 
and  the  Wine  of  which  we  drink  being  the  Blood  of  Christ, 
the  answer  is  not  far  to  seek.  They  had  learnt  from  the 
words  of  the  Lord  Himself  that  the  Body  there  partaken 
of  by  the  Faithful  is  the  Body  offci'cd  upon  the  Cross  (rovro 
sari  TO  (TaJ[jjd  [JjOv  to  "htho^jbivov  vttIp  vfy^co'/),  and  the  Blood  of  the 
New  Covenant  that  Blood  which  was  shed  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  our  sins  (ro  al(j^ci  (j^ov  to  iKyyvo^JAvov).  That  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  co-operates  with  the  faith  of  believers 
to  make  the  Bread  of  the  Eucharist  to  be  to  us,  after  an 
ineffable  manner,  the  crucified  Body,  and  the  cup  of  the 
New  Covenant  to  be,  after  the  like  manner,  the  Blood 
that  for  us  was  shed,  this  with  an  adoring  faith  they  be- 
lieved. But  while  believing  this,  they  had  thought  also 
of  yet  other  words  of  the  same  Lord  in  speaking  (John,  vi.) 
of  the  very  same  truth.  The  words  that  He  had  spoken 
concerning  eating  the  Flesh,   and   drinking  the   Blood,   of 

*  Comment,  in  Joan.  c.  \iii. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  FATHERS  BEFORE  45O  A.D.      I  67 

the  Son  of  man,  He  had  declared  to  be  spirit  and  life ; 
and  the  great  teachers  of  the  early  Church  echo  their 
Master's  words  in  terms  such  as  those  of  St.  Augustine  : 
'  What  is  this  that  He  saith,  "  Spirit  and  Life  ?"  Spiritu- 
ally His  words  are  to  be  understood.  Hast  thou  under- 
stood them  spiritually  ?  Then  are  they  spirit  and  life. 
Hast  thou  understood  them  carnally  ?  Even  then  are 
they  spirit  and  life  :    but  they  are  not  such  to  thee.'  * 

Such  passages  as  these  might  be  largely  added  to  if 
need  were.  But  enough  has  been  already  said  for  my 
present  purpose.  I  do  not  for  a  moment  maintain  that  a 
few  passages  such  as  these  are  sufficient  to  determine  the 
question  of  what  was  the  mind  of  the  Fathers  upon  that 
mysterious  question,  which  is  involved  in  the  Eucharistic 
controversies  of  our  own  day.  But  thus  much  I  may  say. 
The  phrases,  '  the  Real  Presence,'  or  '  the  Real  Objective 
Presence '  (phrases  which,  whether  good  or  bad  in  them- 
selves, are  neither  Scriptural  nor  Patristic),  are  now  being 
made  a  Shibboleth  whereby  to  divide  into  two  hostile  camps 
those  whom  God  would  have  to  dwell  as  brethren  in  mutual 
love  and  peace.  Those  who  so  use  them  must  surely  have 
forgotten  that  even  the  declaration,  '  /  am  of  Christ^  is 
condemned  by  the  voice  of  an  Apostle,  when  it  is  used  as 
a  symbol  of  party  divisions  within  the  Church. 

And  this  further  I  cannot  but  add.  The  number  of  those 
in  our  own  country  who  have  at  once  leisure,  and  power, 
and  opportunity,  for  original   research   into  the  records  of 

*  In  Joan.   Evang.    Tract,   xxvii.  sunt.    Intellexisti  carnaliter?    Etiani 

n.  6  :  'Quid  est,  Spiritus etvita  sunt  i  sic  ilia  Spiritus  d  vita  sunt,  seel  tibi 

Spiritualiter  intelligenda  sunt.  Intel-  non  sunt.' 
lexisti  spiritualiter  ?    Spiritus  d  vita 


1 68  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

the  Church,  is  very  Hmited.  And  the  greater  the  personal 
influence  that  any  such  have,  the  higher  their  claim  to  the 
respect  and  veneration  of  others,  the  greater  is  their  respon- 
sibility for  perfect  'faithfttlness  of  stewardships  when  dealing 
out  for  the  instruction  of  others  that  which  is  laid  up  in 
the  treasure-house  of  antiquity.  If  those  to  whom,  and  to 
whose  writings,  I  now  refer,  had  really  laid  before  the 
Church  in  our  own  days,  with  perfect  accuracy  of  statement, 
the  whole  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  of  the  ancient 
Fathers,  in  reference  to  points  now  disputed,  instead  of 
selecting,  and  oftentimes,  though  unconsciously,  manipu- 
lating their  authorities,  so  as  to  make  them  accord  with  pre- 
determined conclusions,  in  how  different  a  spirit  might  the 
controversy  of  our  own  days  have  been  conducted  ;  how 
different  might  now  have  been  the  spiritual  condition  of  our 
Church !  How  might  men,  now  sundered  in  two  hostile 
camps,  and  turning  one  against  the  other  all  the  resources 
of  human  law,  have  still  continued  in  the  same  path  which, 
till  quite  late  years,  so  many  had  followed,  and  still  have 
been  drawing  nearer  the  one  to  the  other,  as  they  made 
onward  progress  In  ever  higher  knowledge  of  the  truth 
as  it  is  in  Christ. 

And  now  from  these  thoughts  of  the  controversies  of 
our  own  day,  I  return,  and  with  a  very  different  feeling, 
to  the  beautiful  expressions  of  Chrlstig^n  truth  which  have 
already  been  before  us  In  the  Inscription  Itself. 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  J  69 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  THE  INSCRIPTION. 

On  looking  once  more  to  the  Inscription  Itself,  it  will  be 
seen  that,  it  has  reference  to  two  main  subjects, — the  life, 
and  the  death,  of  the  Christian  man.  Of  these  we  will 
speak  in  their  order. 

I.    The  New  Birth,  and  Growth  in  Grace  and  in 
Knowledge  thereupon  follozving. 

Offspring*  of  the  heavenly  Ichthus,  put  forth 
a  heart  of  holy  reverence,  now  that  from  divine 
waters  thou  hast  received,  while  yet  among  mor- 
tals, a  spring  of  life  that  is  to  immortality. 

I%^yog  ov^aviov  Sziov  yzi/og,  ^ro^i  (TS[mco 

QsffTrzfTicov  vhdrojv. 

*  'I'^QvoQ  ovpaviov\_ayLoi>  or  Qeiov]  SHUiH  recipicus  pristiuos  patrcs,  rcge- 

yivoQ.      In    speaking   here    of  our  neravit  eos  m  vitam  Dei,^     Compare 

Lord  as  the  Author  of  the  regene-  the  fuller  statement  quoted   below 

rate  life,  the  writer  of  this .  Inscrip-  (p.  170),  where  he  describes  the  co- 

tion  follows  (as  elsewhere)  St.  Iren-  operation   of  the  Father,   the   Son, 

ceus.     Thus,  in  lib.  iii.  cap.  xx.  the  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  work  of 

latter  says,  '  Primogcnitus  eniin  inor-  the  new  creation.      And    again,    in 

tiionim  natus  Do  minus  et  in  sinu/ii  lib.  i.   c.  xi.,  he  says  that  the   last 


I  70  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

-In  the  thought  here  expressed,  as  in  the  language  of 
Holy  Scripture,  the  doctrine  of  our  New  Birth  is  regarded 
as  a  foundation  on  which  to  build  up  precepts  of  holy  life, 
and  of  onward  growth  at  once  in  grace  and  in  knowledge. 

As  St.  Peter  (2  Pet.  i.  3  sqq),  to  take  but  a  single 
example,  combines*  the  two  thoughts  of  the  grace  of  God 
enabling  us  to  spiritual  life  i^ojri)  and  godliness,  with  that 
of  the  need  of  all  diligence  and  earnestness  (^raca  aToOlyi) 
on  our  part  in  putting  forth  those  powers  in  onward  pro- 
gress towards  '  perfection,'  or  fulness  of  growth,  so  do  the 
great  teachers  of  the  early  Church — the  Greek  Fathers 
more  particularly.  And  among  these  none  with  more 
earnest  insistence,  or  in  more  exact  conformity  with  the 
teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  than  St.  Irenseus,  whose 
influence,  as  already  remarked,  may  be  clearly  traced  in 
the  language  of  this  monument.  Take,  for  example,  the 
passage  that  follows  (Adv.  Heer.  iv.  cc.  38,  39)  :  — 

Man  (/.  e.  the  '  second  Adam '  of  Father,  and  Mother,  and  Teacher 
St.  Paul)  was  manifested  for  the  (Trat^aywyoe),  and  Foster-father  (rpo- 
regeneration  of  the  first  man  (/.  e.  ^>evQ).  And  the  same  writer  speaks 
of  the  natural  man,  the  -n-aXawQ  of  Christians  as  Xpiaroyovoi,  'Christ- 
ciydpcjTTOQ  of  St.  Paul)  :  Toy  eaxarou  born.'  (Pied.  iii.  c.  12.) 
avdpwTTOv  e\q  arayiyin)(TLV  Tov  TzpijTOv  '"'  2  Pet.  i.  3,  sqq.  'Seeing  that 
avdpwTTov  Tre(pi]vevai.  It  is  with  the  the  Divine  power  kat/i  already  be- 
same  thought,  again,  that  he  speaks  stowed  itpon  us  all  things  that  are 
of  ea7ti  quce.  est  ex  Virgine  per  Jidem  needed  for  life  and  godliness  .... 
regeiierationem  [no  doubt  rtji' Ik  rfjc  bring  ye  in  (TrapeiaeriyKayrec,  a.  word 
TTcipdevov  ^la  ttLcttewq  TraXiyyeveaiav].  implying  contribution,  as  to  an  united 
Lib.  iv.  Potter,  p.  358.  With  the  work)  all  diligence,  and  furnish  forth 
above  agree  occasional  expressions  abundantly  (eTrixop-nyiiaare)  in  your 
of  other  Fathers,  as  that  of  Clemens  faith  virtue,  in  your  virtue  know- 
Alexand.  (Psedag.  i.  vi.)  :  '  The  ledge,  in  your  knowledge  temper- 
Word  is  all  things  to  the  infant  (/.  e.  ance'  [kyKparuav,  self-mastery),  and 
to   the  infant  by  new  birth),   both  so  the  rest  that  follows. 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I71 

'  God  in  all  thing-s  hath  first  place,  Who  alone  is  un- 
begotten,  and  first  of  all,  and  the  cause  of  being  to  all. 
But  all  things  else  abide  in  subjection  to  God  ;  and  sub- 
jection to  God  is  incorruption ;  and  to  abide  in  incorruption 
is  the  glory  of  Him  who  is  unbegotten.  This,  then,  is  the 
order,  and  such  the  harmonious  action,  and  such  the  onward 
guidance,  by  which  man,  begotten  and  fashioned  by  the 
Creator's  hand,  cometh  to  be  (y/kra;)  after  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God  the  Unbegotten  ;  the  Father  so  willing 
and  giving  command,  and  the  Son  acting  and  fashioning 
as  with  a  workman's  hand  {^^daaovrog  y,ai  ^rjijutovgyovvroc), 
and  the  Spirit  ministering  food  and  increase  {r§s(povrog  x.ca 
av^ovrog),  and  the  man  the  while  making  onward  advance 
as  with  a  silent,  unobserved  growth,  and  reaching  up  unto 
perfection,  coming  nigh  that  is,  to  the  Unbegotten  ;  for 
perfect  is  He  who  is  Unbegotten,  that  is  God.  For  need 
there  was  that  man  should  first  come  into  being ;  and  having 
come  into  being  that  he  should  make  growth  ;  and  having 
made  growth  attain  matured  manhood  ;  and  from  matured 
manhood  that  he  should  be  multiplied  ;*  and  being  multi- 
plied that  he  should  become  strong ;  and  becoming  strong 
that  he  be  glorified  ;  and  being  glorified  that  he  see  Him 
who  is  his  Lord  {rov  iocvrov  haTrorrjv).  For  it  is  God  that 
shall  be  seen  of  us  ;  and  the  vision  of  God  produceth 
incorruption  ;  and  incorruption  maketh  nigh  unto  God.' 

[Then,  after  speaking  of  man  as  having  knowledge 
both  of  good  and  evil,  and  the  power  (and  therefore  the 
responsibility)  of  choice  between  the  two,  he  proceeds  :] 

*  nX7]ftvi'6)~]t'ai.  Probably  his  he  speaks,  according  to  that  of  St. 
thought  is  of  grace  being  '  muki-  Peter,  x"f"c  I'/t'Tc  TrXijOvyBtiij.  (i  Pet. 
phed'  to  the  Christian  man  of  whom      i.  2  ;  2  Pet.  i.  2.) 


I  72  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

'  How  then  shall  he  become  [as]  God,  who  hath  not 
yet  become  man  ?  Or  how  attain  to  fulness  of  growth, 
who  hath  but  as  now  come  into  being  ?  Or  how  shall  he 
become  immortal,  who  while  yet  in  a  mortal  nature  hath 
not  been  obedient  to  his  Maker  ?  For  first  must  thou 
keep  thyself  after  the  order  of  humanity,  that  so  afterward 
thou  mayest  be  partaker  of  the  glory  of  God.  For  it  is 
not  thou  that  makest  God,  but  God  that  maketh  thee. 
If  therefore  thou  art  God's  work,  await  thou  the  hand 
of  thy  Maker,  who  doeth  all  things  in  fit  time  ;  in  fit  time 
as  regards  thee,  who  art  being  formed  by  Him.  But  do 
thou  so  present  thine  heart  ti7ito  Him  that  it  shall  be  soft 
and  respo}isive  to  His  touch,  and  keep  that  likeness  whereunto 
He  hath  fashioned  thee,  having  moisture  in  thyself  lest  being 
hardened  tho2c  lose  the  mark  which  His  fingers  have  im- 
pressed.^ But  if  thou  keep  that  likeness  whereunto  He 
hath  fashioned  thee,  thou  shalt  mount  upward  to  perfection  ; 
for  by  God's  handiwork  that  clay  which  is  in  thine  own  self 
is  put  away  out  of  sight.  His  hand  hath  fashioned  the 
substance  that  is  in  thee  ;  He  will  cover  thee,  within  and 
without,  with  a  covering  of  pure  gold  and  silver ;  yea.  He 
will  so  adorn  thee  that  the  King  Himself  shall  have  plea- 
sure in  thy  beauty.  But  If,  being  straightway  hardened, 
thou  wilt  none  of  His  fashioning  ;t  if  thou  show  thyself 
unthankful  unto  Him,  being  ungrateful  unto  God  because 


**  '  Prsesta    autem    ei    cor   tuum  '■prcssta  cor  timm  vwUe  et  tractabile ' 

moUe  et  tractabile,  et  custodi  figu-  is   a   close  approach  to  the   XP*?""^ 

ram  qua  te  figuravit  artifex,  habens  =   xp'7'^ai)    {jropi  aefivo')  of  the  In- 

in   temetipso  humorem,  ne  indura-  scription. 

tus  amittas  vestigia  digitorum  ejus.'  f  Artcin  is  the  word  of  the  trans- 

[The  Greek  original  is  lost.]     This  lator,  but  evidently  =  h)f.ii<)vpykii: 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  73 

thyself  made  man,  then  wilt  thou  in  the  same  moment 
lose  both  His  forming*  hand  and  thine  own  true  life.  For 
it  is  proper  to  the  goodness  of  God  that  He  should  thus 
make,  and  proper  to  the  nature  of  man  that  he  thus  be 
made.  If  therefore  thou  render  unto  Him  that  is  thine, 
even  faith  in  Him  and  subjection,  then  shalt  thou  receive 
His  fashioning*  power,  and  shalt  be  God's  perfected 
work.' 

More  briefly,  but  with  thought  and  expression  closely 
in  accord  with  this,  St.  Augustine  writes  as  follows  : — 

'  Man,  to  attain  to  any  true  being,  must  turn  himself 
toward  Him  by  whom  he  was  created.  For  in  drawino- 
back  he  waxeth  cold  ;  in  drawing  nigh  he  waxeth  warm. 
Drawing  back  he  gathereth  darkness  ;  drawing  nigh  he 
gathereth  light.  Wherefore,  whosoever  would  be  like 
unto  God,  that  so  he  may  stand  in  His  presence,  and, 
as  it  is  written,  "preserve  his  strength  before  Him,"  let 
him  not  draw  back  from  Him ;  to  Him  clinging  {cohccrendd) 
let  him  take  His  impress,  as  wax  taketh  impress  from  a 
seal  ;  to  Him  closely  joined  let  him  keep  His  likeness, 
doing  that  of  which  it  is  written,  "It  is  good  for  me  to 
hold  me  fast  by  God!"  let  him  retain  in  deed  and  truth 
that  similitude  and  likeness  after  which  he  hath  been 
made.'   (Enarr.  in  Ps.  Ixx.  6.) 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  for  me  to  point  out  to  you 
in  detail  the  close  resemblance  in  thought,  and  occasion- 
ally even  in  expression,  between  the  language  I  have 
now  quoted  and  that  of  the  Inscription  now  in  your 
hands. 

-'■'-  See  note  f  in  preceding  page. 


174 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRirTION. 


2.   Of  Man  s  part  of  Duty  in  feeding  his  Soul  with 
Spiritnal  Food. 

Quicken  thy  soul,  beloved  one,  to  ever  fuller 
life,*  with  the  unfailing  waters  of  wealth-giving 
wisdom  ;  and  receive  the  honey-sweet  food  of  the 
Saviour  of  the  Saints.  Eat,  with  a  longing 
hunofer,  holding  Ichthus  in  thine  hands. 

"Ylccffiv  cczvdoig  'TrXourohdrou  co^/???, 

"E(r0iz  'TTSivcccji',  'ly^dvp  'ixf^y  'Xc/Xd^jaiq. 

That  there  is  a  direct  reference  in  the  last  line  to  that 
feeding  upon  heavenly  food  which  is  vouchsafed  to  us  at 


*  '  Qidcken  .  .  to  ever  fuller  life' 
Only  by  periphrasis  can  the  pregnant 
meaning  of  such  an  expression  as 
BaX-n-Eo  be  brought  out.  The  word 
itself,  and  the  tense  employed  (pre- 
sent instead  of  the  more  usual  aorist), 
are  both  significant.  QaX-n-eiv  is,  as 
nearly  as  may  be,  the  Latin  fovere. 
And  as  it  is  nowhere  found  in  clas- 
sical usage  in  the  middle  voice,  its 
use  here  has  been  exclaimed  against 
(by  M.  Rossignol)  as  a  soloecism. 
But  such  criticism  appears  to  me  to 
lose  sight  of  an  important  distinc- 
tion. Modern  scholars,  when  writing 
Greek,  are  bound  to  adhere  to  the 
usage  sanctioned  by  those  ancient 


masters  whom  they  professedly  imi- 
tate. But  to  the  educated  inhabit- 
ants of  some  parts  of  Gaul  in  early 
times,  Greek  was,  it  is  hardly  too 
much  to  say,  a  native  language. 
And  they  had  the  power,  and  with 
the  power  the  right,  to  modify  the 
language  of  Homer  and  of  Hesiod 
(the  former  of  whom,  more  particu- 
larly, was  as  familiar  to  them  as 
Shakespeare  is  to  us),  and  to  adapt 
it,  even  with  slight  changes  from 
ordinary  usage,  to  the  expression  of 
specially  Christian  ideas,  such  as 
that  in  the  line  now  under  consi- 
deration. 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  75 

the  table  of  our  Lord,  none  can  fail  to  see.  But  I  venture 
to  think  that  those  commentators  are  mistaken  who  so 
interpret  the  line  immediately  preceding.  Nor  has  any 
of  these,  as  far  as  I  have  observed,  brought  out  the  mean- 
ing, which,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  is  veiled  under  the  figur- 
ative expressions  with  which  the  passage  last  quoted 
opens. 

In  order  to  understand  the  thought  of  the  writer  of 
this  Inscription  in  the  three  first  of  the  four  lines  just 
quoted,  we  should  bear  in  mind  the  figurative  language, 
both  of  Scripture  and  of  early  Fathers,  in  reference  to 
gifts  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  following  upon,  and  in  some 
sense  distinct  from,  the  gift  of  New   Birth   in   Baptism. 

These  are  plainly  distinguished,  first,  in  Holy  Scripture: 
'  Then  the  Apostles  laid  their  hands  on  them  (Disciples 
in  Samaria),  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  as 
yet  He  had  fallen  tLpou  none  of  them,  only  they  had  been 
baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord.'  And  so  our  Lord  in 
one  passage  (John,  iii.  3,  5)  speaks  of  New  Birth- — Birth 
of  (i^)  water  and  the  Spirit— as  necessary  to  our  first 
entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  and  in  yet  another 
(John,  vii.  37-39)  He  compares  those  ^///i"  of  the  Spirit, 
which  were  to  be  bestowed  upon  believers  after  His  own 
Ascension,  to  rivers  of  living  water,  springing  (or  welling) 
up,  as  to  another  He  said,  unto  everlasting  life.  And  He 
compares  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bestowed  upon  us 
by  our  heavenly  Father  to  the  daily  giving  of  food  (both 
bread  and  fish  are  named)  by  parents  to  their  children. 

Such  language  occurs  again  and  again,  under  various 
modifications,  in  Holy  Scripture.  And  this  we  find  re- 
echoed by  that  of  early   Fathers,  both  in  East  and  West. 


176  THE  AUTUN  INSCRirTION. 

Thus,  for  example,  St,  Irenseus  speaks,  in  more  than 
one  place,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  imparted  to  man,  as  being  the 
Food  of  Life  {(^^^(Jbo,  ^&>jjg),  or  t/ie  Bread  of  Immortality 
[adv.  Haer.  lib.  iv.  cap.  38],  and  that  with  express  reference 
to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  imparted  through  the  laying  on  of 
the  Apostles'  hands.  'O?  obv  6  ' K'^oardkog  'buvarog  i^v  ^ihovui  ro 
^^aj(jtjDc'  oig  yao  av  I'^nri&ovv  rag  xzioag  IXdyj^oci^ov  Ylvzv(Jba  "Ay/of,  0 
lari  (3^cj(jba  ^coTJg.  And  so  in  a  passage  already  quoted,  while 
the  Father  willeth,  and  the  Son  worketh,  it  is  the  Spirit 
who  feedeth  (rcgipovro?)  the  new  life  that  is  God's  gift,  and 
giveth  it  due  increase.  To  the  same  effect  writes  St. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  a  very  remarkable  passage. 
(Paedag.  lib.  i.  cap.  vi.)  Referring  to  the  words,  '  I  fed  you 
with  milk'  (i  Cor.  iii.  2),  he  says,  '  The  Holy  Spirit  which 
was  in  the  Apostle,  speaking  as  with  the  voice  of  the  Lord 
{rig  rov  Kvotov  aToy^^cofJusvov  (pcov^),  saith,  "  I  gave  you  milk  to 
drink."  For  if  we  have  been  regenerated  unto  Christ,  then 
He  that  regenerated  us  feedeth  us  with  His  own  milk, 
even  the  Word  :  for  whatsoever  it  be  that  generateth,  that 
same  doth  provide  food  for  that  which  is  begotten.  And 
as  with  the  Regeneration^  so  zvith  t/ie  food,  by  analogy  thei'e- 
with — one  and  the  other  are  alike  spiritjtal.  Ka^aVs^  ^g 
7]    avccyevvfjffig    ccvaXo'/Mg,    outoj    zu)    ri    7^o(pr]    y'zyovz    tm    civ&^co'tcu 

The  '  ever-flowing  waters,'  then,  wherewith  the  Divine 
life  is  to  be  cherished  in  the  heart,  are  to  be  interpreted, 
so  all  I  think  will  allow,  of  those  confirming  and  strength- 
ening gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Divine  Word,  follow  upon  the  communica- 
tion of  the  first  gift  of  New  Life. 

But    what    is    the    thought    involved    in    the    line    that 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  77 

follows  ?     '  Receive  (from   day   to  day)*   the   honey-sweet 
Food  of  the  Saviour  of  the  Saints  :' — 

^uryj^og  ^'  ayicov  [JbiXitihscc  Xcc[Jty(ic6VS  (^^ajaiv. 

Without  excluding  that  thought  which  to  most  ears 
will  at  once  be  suggested  by  these  words,  I  cannot  but 
think  that  the  language  of  Scripture,  and  the  comments 
of  early  Fathers,  will  lead  us  to  see  another  meaning  as 
at  least  suggested  by  the  words  before  us. 

The  very  word  (io^trig  takes  us  at  once  (as  some  earlier 
commentators  on  this  monument  have  observed)  to  the 
Fourth  Chapter  of  St.  John  :  '  I  have  a  meat  {(B^ajaig)  to 
eat  that  ye  know  not  of.  My  meat  (;?  Ifirj  (5§SJaig)  is  to  do 
the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.' 

These  words  we  may  in  a  sense  apply  to  ourselves  ;  nor 
should  we,  I  think,  in  so  doing  run  counter  at  all  to  the 
mind  of  the  writer  of  this  Inscription.  But  yet  the  language 
of  the  earlier  teachers  of  the  Church,  and  the  context  of 
the  present  passage,  would  lead  us  to  think  that  the  food 
here  spoken  of  is  the  food  which  the  Saviour  of  the  Saints 
ministers  to  them  that  are  His.  And  that  special  food 
that  in  this  line  is  spoken  of  I  believe  to  be  the  Word 
of  Truth,  ^/le  revealed  Word,  spoken  of  both  in  Scripture, 
and  In  innumerable  passages  of  early  Fathers,  as  a  food 
whereby  the  spiritual  life  is  fed. 

In  Holy  Scripture,  first;  as  when  our  Lord  says  that 
'  man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,'  bread  for  the  support 


*  I  add  these  words  in  order  to      the  present  imperative.     See  '  Eire- 
bring  out   the   special   connotation      nica,'  part  ii.  note  50. 
(continued   or   repeated   action)   of 

N 


I  78  THE  AUTUN  INSCRirTION. 

of  his  natural  life  ;  but  for  the  nurturing  of  that  new  life, 
which  is  of  the  Spirit,  '  by  every  word  (p^/ooa)  that  proceedeth 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God.'  And  so  St.  Peter  bids  his  Dis- 
ciples, as  newly-born  babes  {aoTiymf^ra.  (i^sp}i),  '  i(o  long  for 
the  Miiadullej^ated*  milk  of  the  Word,  that  tliey  may  grow 
thereby!  Life  they  have  already  received,  but  they  need 
food  for  the  support  of  that  life.  That  expression  of  St. 
Peter's,  however,  is  not  so  manifestly  limited  as  is  that  of 
St.  Paul  in  another  passage  ;  where,  with  evident  reference 
to  teaching  in  the  revealed  word,  he  speaks  of  this  as  being 
either  milk  suited  for  babes  only,  or  as  strong  meat  fitted 
only  for  those  who  have  made  some  advance  towards 
maturity  of  Christian  life.   (Heb.  v,    12.) 

With  all  this  agrees  the  language  of  early  Fathers, 
both  in  East  and  West,  who  speak  either  of  Divine 
Revelation  generally,  or  more  particularly  of  the  Books  of 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  the  teaching  of  Apostles 
and  Evangelists,  as  being  a  divine  food,  wherewith  Christ 
feedeth  them  that  are  His. 

To  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  for  instance,  Christ, 
the  personified  t  '  Wisdom '  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (the 
'TrXovrohornt  ^o(pioi  of  this  Inscription),  is  a  'TTT^yT^  (L(x.&rj(i,drm,  a 
Fountain  from  whose  waters  we  may  imbibe  what  most  we 
need  to  learn.  ('  Strom.'  lib.  vi.  p.  786,  Potter.)  And  the 
same  writer  interprets  the  '  milk '  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks 


*    Ufiadtilterated :  " AZoXov,      The  t  It  is  this  personification  of  2o(/)m 

expression  is  well  illustrated  by  a  which   accounts,    probably,   for  the 

proverb   quoted  by  St.  Irenaeus,  in  use  of  the  masculine  form,  ttXovto- 

reference  to  heretical  corruptions  of  dorrjg  (for  which  see  note,  p.  150), 

the  divine  word:  ^Zade gyj>sum  mate  rather   than,    what   by   analogy   we 

miscetur.^  might  have  expected,  TrXovro^oreipa. 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  79 

as  being  r^v  yvoJaiv  rrjv  1%.  zarrf/riGic^t;  kvar^ii^ovauv  zlg  ^ojrjv  ai'hov, 
that  true  knowledge  which,  resisting  from  instruction  in  the 
faith,  ministers  food  unto  Hfe  eternal.  ('  Psedag.'  lib.  i.  c.  vi.) 
And  in  the  same  passage  (p.  119,  ed.  Potter)  he  speaks  of 
the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  as  being  a  spiritual  food  (rvsv^jbariK^ 
rgo<pri),  and  of  the  Apostle  himself  as  instilling  such  a  food 
by  that  milk  which  is  of  Christ,  that  milk  being  the  word  : 

And,  in  connexion  with  this  Inscription,  there  is  a  spe- 
cial interest  in  noting  how  the  '  fish  '  and  the  loaves,  with 
which,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  our  Lord  fed  His  dis- 
ciples, were  interpreted  by  Fathers  both  of  East  and  West. 
Passages  have  been  already  quoted  (p.  122)  which  may 
serve  as  examples  of  many  more  that  might  be  alleged. 
They  show  that,  in  the  eyes  of  these  earlier  teachers  of  the 
Church,  this  food  which,  with  a  mystical  significance,  our 
Lord  distributed,  was  typical  of  the  Word  of  God  contained 
in  Holy  Scripttcres  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament. 

And  putting  together  now  these  two  interpretations 
upon  which  we  have  been  dwelling — one  pointing  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or  the  grace  of  God,  as  man's  spiritual  food ; 
the  other  to  the  word  of  God,  or  His  revealed  truth  —  we 
find  that  the  language  of  this  Inscription,  in  the  lines  now 
before  us,  is  an  exact  reproduction  of  precepts  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Such,  for  example,  is  that  of  St.  Peter  (2  Pet. 
iii.  18),  bidding  the  young  Christian  not  to  fall  away  from 
his  own  'stay'  {(rrri^iy^k),  or  source  of  steadfastness,  but  to 
grow  in  grace  and  in  knowledge  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
{ccv^dviTi  Iv  yji^iri  xcc}  yvcuan  rov  Kv^iov).  And  so  St.  Paul 
(Col.  i.  10)  speaks  of  his  prayer  for  his  own  children  in  the 
faith  being  this,  that  they  may  ....  g-row  by  ever  higher 


l8o  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

knowledge   of  God   {av\(ivo[Livoi    r^   I'Tnyvooazi  rov  ©sou'    such, 
probably,  is  the  true  reading). 

And,  lastly,  this  thought  of  needful  food  wherewith  to 
sustain  that  new  life  which  is  God's  gift  to  the  regenerated 
man,  found  expression  in  an  usage  which  was  of  wide 
extent,  though  not  of  universal  occurrence,  in  the  early 
Church — that  of  giving  honey  and  milk  to  the  newly  bap- 
tized. To  this  usage,  and  to  the  thought  therein  embodied, 
there  may  probably  be  an  allusion  in  the- '  honey-sweet ' 
food  spoken  of  in  the  text. 

3.    Tke  Feeding  tip  on  Christ  crucified,  which  is  in 
Holy  Communion. 

The  line  which  next  follows  carries  on  our  thoughts  to 
that  feeding  upon  the  Body  given  for  us  on  the  Cross,  which 
is  vouchsafed  to  faithful  souls  in  the  act  of  Communion 
at  the  Table  of  the  Lord  : 

'  Eat,  with  a  longing  htmger,  holding  Ichthus  in  thine  hands. ' 

There  is  here  exactly  the  combination  of  Scriptural 
thought,  and  of  symbolical  expression  characteristic  of  the 
earlier  Church,  which,  in  view  of  the  date  assigned  to  the 
monument  {circ.  400  a.d.),  we  might  antecedently  have 
expected  to  find.  Of  Scriptural  thought,  first ;  for  that 
longing  hunger  of  the  heart,  which  is  here  beautifully  ex- 
pressed in  a  single  word  {^ivduv  ■=.  '?nivdoov),  is  that  which,  in 
Holy  Scripture,  is  again  and  again  set  before  us  as  the  true 
preparation  of  the  soul  that  would  be  filled  with  the  '  good 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  8  I 

things '  of  the  Lord.  '  Blessed  are  they  that  hunger '  {pi 
■Tzivuvng,  the  very  same  word)  '  and  thirst  after  rightcotisness, 
for  they  shall  be  filled'  '  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him  come 
unto  me  and  drink!  And  in  close  agreement  with  this  is 
the  language  of  early  Fathers  in  all  parts  of  the  Church. 
'  The  Lo7'd  fecdeth  to  the  full  them  that  hunger  for  the 
word :  such  is  the  language  of  one.*  '  We  have  been  taught ! 
says  another,t  and  he  one  of  the  *  Apostles '  of  central  Gaul, 
'  with  hunger  to  receive  that  food  which  is  bestowed  on  us 
of  God!  And  again,  the  word  'I^^J?,  as  we  have  already 
seen  (p.  123),  carried  back  the  thought  of  the  faithful  in 
early  times  to  Christ,  and  more  especially  to  Christ  cruci- 
fied,;]: in  respect  that  His  Body  offered  for  us  to  God,  and 
His  Blood  outpoured  on  our  behalf,  are  the  spiritual  food 
given  to  us  of  God,  whereby  believing  souls  may  be  fed 
unto  life  eternal. 

I  am  unwilling  to  quit  this  portion  of  my  subject  without 
referring,  though  very  briefly,  to  another  Inscription,§  the 
date  of  which,  however,  is  uncertain,  and  its  true  text,  in 
many  parts  of  it,  hopelessly  corrupt.  But  in  the  symbolical 
language  therein  employed  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucha- 

*  Clement.  Alex.   Psedag.   lib.  i.  again  by  Cardinal  Pitra  ('  Spicil.  So- 

c.  vi.     'O  Kupeoc  £Kdpi\pei   roiig  Tret-  lesm.'  iii.  p.  532),  after  comparison 

vbiyrac  rov  \6yov.  of  seven  manuscripts  in  the  Imperial 

f  S.   Irenrei  adv.    Haeres.  lib.   v.  Library   at   Paris.     Padre  Garrucci 

c.  xxii.  :  '  Nos  docuit  .  .  esurienter  gives  an  ingenious,  but  purely  con- 

sustinere  (?  i/Tro^E^eo-Oat)  eam  quae  a  jectural,  restoration  of  it,  Xkvo.  Roman 

Deo  datur  escam.'  authorship  of  which  is,  I  need  hardly 

X  ^ Fiscis  assus,  Christus passus.'  say,  sufficiently  evident.   ('Melanges 

§  Edited    by    Halloixius,    in   his  d'Epigraphie  ancienne,'  p.  i.    Paris, 

'  Collectio  Orientalium  Patrum;'  and  1856.) 


I  82  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

rist,  it  presents  a  curious  parallel  to  that  now  under  our 
consideration.  I  refer  to  the  Epitaph  of  Abercius,  Bishop 
of  Hierapolis,  in  Phrygia.  He  writes  his  own  epitaph  by 
anticipation  ;  and  after  describing  his  travels  in  different 
parts  of  the  world,  he  speaks  of  certain  as  '  gathering 
together  with  him,'  and  then  proceeds  as  follows  :  — 

riifTTig  ^£  "TT^og^ys 

Keel  'Ta^idi^zB  r^o(p^v,  'Ix&vv  [?  6zia,g  or  %ccj]  k'TCo  'Trriyijg, 

Woifjj^iyi&TI,  zccdoi^ov,  ov  ih^d^ccro  Troc^&zvog  ayvri' 

Ka<  rovrov  iTshcozz  (piXotg  'i(T0&iv  hiKTruvrog, 

OJvov  y^^j^fTTOv   'iy^ov(jOi,  zsgoc<T(jj(x,  hihomoc  [Mt  agrov. 

'  Faith  brought  to  us,  and  set  before  us.  Food, 
a  Fish  from  a  [?  holy  or  divine]  Fount,  great  and 
clean,  which  the  holy  Maiden*  took  in  her  hand, 
and  gave  it  to  her  friends,  that  they  should  alway 
eat  thereof,  holding  goodly  wine,  giving,  with 
bread,  a  mingled  drink.' 


3.   Christ' s  Presence  in  the  Honr  of  Death. 

The  next  two  lines  open  up  an  entirely  new  subject,  to 
which,  however,  those  already  quoted  lead  us  up  as  by 
natural  sequence  :  — 

*  The    holy    [virgin]    Maiden    is  the  eyes  of  Padre  Garrucci  and  Dr. 

evidently,  from  the   context,  Faith,  Northcote,   the   -Kapdkvoc,   liyvri  can 

personified.     The  absence  of  the  ar-  be  no  other  than  the  Virgin  Mary ; 

tide  with  irapBeyog  cannot  be  pressed  and  '  Faith '   to  the  former   of  the 

in  regard  of  lines   so  barbarous  as  two  is  not  Faith,  but  '  the  Church.' 
many  in  this  epitaph  are.     But  in 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  83 

'  On  Ichthus  my  hands  are  clasped  :  in  Thy 
love  come  nigh  unto  me,  and  be  my  guide,  my 
Lord  and  Saviour  :  I  intreat  Thee,  Thou  Lieht  of 
them  for  whom  the  hour  of  death  is  past :' 

^\x,&vi  ^S'fS  a^ccgoc'  XiXako,  hUTTora  (raJrz^, 
YjV^v  (/jOi  '^y^jryjo,  (ts  XiTdZ^o[M,   (pSjg  ro  Savovrcov. 

The  exact  translation  of  the  lines  before  us  cannot  be 
determined  with  certainty,  till  it  can  be  ascertained*  whether 
the  true  reading  of  the  second  of  these  two  lines  be  zvOv  or 
iv  av.  Whichever  this  be,  the  general  sense  is,  I  think,  clear. 
From  thought  of  that  feeding  upon  the  Bread  of  Life  (John, 
vi.  51),  which  is  the  pledge  to  us  of  our  not  dying  eternally, 
and  of  our  being  delivered,  not,  indeed,  from  death,  but 
oiU^  ^ death,  by  the  present  power  of  our  Lord,  the  transi- 
tion is  natural  to  a  passage  such  as  this,  in  which  a  prayer 

*  While  these  sheets  were  passing  tl  av  f.101  liyrtTi'ip  should  be  regarded 

through    the   press   I  have  had  an  as  the  actual  wording  of  the  original, 

opportunity  of  examining   the   ori-  [The  correction    of  the  workmajis 

ginal    Inscription,  preserved  in  the  XiXalu)  into  XiXaleo,  a  secimda  maiiu, 

Musee  Lapidaire  at  Autun.      Either  is  quite  clear  on  the  marble.] 
€Y0Y    MO  I    or    CY0I     MOI  t  Compare    that    which    is   said 

may  be  regarded  as  not  improbably  (Heb.  v.  7)  of  our  Lord  praying,  in 

the  words  with  which  the  line  be-  the  hour  of  His  agony,  to  Him  who 

gins.      But    €Y    CY     MOI    would  was   able    auji^eiv   avrov   Ik   davarov, 

agree    still   better  with  the  marble  and  of  His  prayer  being  heard  (elar]- 

itself.     This   expression   appears   a  Koverdrj).      The   thought   implied   is 

Aveak  one,  as  compared  with  either  that  of  death,   followed  by  deliver- 

of  the  two  others.    But  the  evidence  ance   ouf  of  death.     Compare  that 

of  actual   text   is   of  far  more   im-  expression  of  the  psalm,  '  Great  are 

portance   than   individual  fancy  as  the  troubles  of  the  righteous  :  but 

to  what  text  ought  to  be.     And  I  the    Lord    delivereth    him    out    of 

incline    to    think  that   XiXaieo  .  .  .  all.' 


184  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

is  offered  to  Christ,  as  the  Light  of  them  that  have  died,  for 
His  guidance  through  the  valley  of  Death  to  the  bright 
Paradise  of  rest  and  peace  which  lies  beyond. 

The  thought  here  implied,  of  an  intermediate  state  of 
rest  and  peace  for  the  godly,  intervening  between  death 
and  the  general  resurrection,  as  again  in  another  somewhat 
similar  inscription  already  quoted  (see  p.  142),  is  one  which 
in  Holy  Scripture  is  in  many  ways  suggested,  though  not 
drawn  out  (intentionally  this,  we  may  well  believe)  with  any 
clearness  of  definition. 

Our  Lord  says  to  the  penitent  robber,  '  Thou  shalt  be 
with  me  in  Paradise '  (not  in  heaven),  and  that  not  '  here- 
after,' not  'at  the  last  day,'  not  'at  my  coming'  {\v  ry  Ta^ovffia 
(ji>ov\  but  '  to-day  :'  '  Verily  I  say  tcnto  thee,  This  day  shalt 
thoic  be  with  me  in  Paradise!  And  this  thought  of  a  greater 
nearness  to  Christ  (at  least  a  more  conscious  nearness)  being 
vouchsafed  to  His  holy  servants  after  their  '  departure,'  is 
plainly  implied  in  more  than  one  passage  by  St.  Paul  :  as, 
for  example,  when  he  says,  that  '  in  a  strait  between  two,' 
between  life  and  death,  his  own  desire,  in  regard  of  himself, 
was  that  he  might  ^depart,  and  be  with  Christ'  (Phil.  i.  23). 
And  very  beautifully  is  a  similar  thought  expressed  in  an- 
other epistle,  where  he  speaks  of  the  quitting  of  our  home 
{k'xohniMuv)  in  the  body  being  an  entering  upon  our  true 
home  with  the  Lord  i^ivhri\x,7iaa.i  -Tr^og  rov  Kvgiov).    2  Cor.  v.  8. 

That  the  truths  shadowed  out  in  expressions  such  as 
these  have  been  '  developed  '  in  mediaeval  times  into  the 
doctrine  of  Purgatory,  with  all  the  gross  abuses,  both  of 
belief  and  of  practice,  which  have  clustered  about  this  doc- 
trine ;  this,  surely,  is  no  reason  why  we  should  shut  our 
eyes  to  that  which  the  Apostles  of  Christ  taught  from  the 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  85 

beginning.  But  it  is  doubtless  a  reason  why  in  this,  as  in 
other  matters  of  revealed  truth,  we  should  not  attempt  to 
lift  the  veil  from  that  which  God,  in  His  wisdom,  hath  not 
thought  fit  to  reveal  :  it  is  a  reason  why  in  this,  as  in  many 
other  matters  of  doctrine  wherein  men  presumptuously  define 
what  God,  all-wise,  hath  left  undefined,  we  should  listen  to 
the  warnings  of  great  teachers  of  the  early  Church, 

not  curiously  to  pry  into  the  secret  things  of  God.  For,  as 
the  same  thought  has  elsewhere  been  well  expressed  (by 
whom  first  I  know  not)  : 

*  Nescire  velle,  quoi  Magistcr  Optimus 
Docere  noji  vulf,  enedita  inscitia  est.' 


4.    The  Farewell,  btit  not  'for  ever',  to  those  beloved 
on  earth. 

Thoughts  such  as  those  dwelt  on  in  the  last  section,  and 
which  were  familiar  to  Christian  people  in  those  early  ages 
of  the  Church  from  which  this  monument  dates,  lead  on,  by 
natural  sequence,  to  the  simple  but  suggestive  expressions 
of  family  affection  with  which  this  Inscription  ends  : — 

2yf  (Jj\jlT^i  yXuKS^y  ?coii  TToi&iv  r~\p7(nv  \^o7(nv 
I[X0TN   Ihcuv  viov~\  (jjvrjfT&o   YlzKTO^iov. 

'  My  Father  Aschandeius,  dear  unto  mine  heart, 
And  thou,  sweet  Mother,  and  all  I  love  on  earth, 
Oft  as  you  look  upon  yon  holy  Sign  of  Christ, 
So  often  think  of  me,  Pectorius  your  son.' 


1 86  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

Though  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the  exact  wording  of  these 
conckiding  Hues,  enough  remains  of  them  to  guide  us,  with 
all  but  certainty,  to  their  general  meaning.  The  consent 
(with  scarce  an  exception)  of  interpreters  of  all  schools,  in 
all  but  minute  points  of  expression,  constitutes  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  we  are  not  far  from  the  truth,  though  we  can 
hardly  expect  exactly  to  have  divined  it.  Enough  remains 
to  enable  us  to  see  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other  Christian 
monuments  of  early  Christendom,  an  evidence  of  the  marked 
contrast  "of  feeling  between  Pagan  and  Christian  thought  in 
regard  of  death.  In  a  Roman  monument,  which  I  had 
occasion  to  publish*  not  long  since,  a  father  (Caius  Sestius 
by  name)  is  represented  bidding  farewell  to  his  daughter ; 
and  two  words,  '  Vale  ^ternom  ' — Farewell,  for  ever, 
give  an  expressive  utterance  to  the  feeling  of  blank  and 
hopeless  severance  with  which  Greeks  and  Romans  were 
burdened  when  the  reality  of  death  was  before  their  eyes. 
But  in  the  lines  before  us  there  breathes  the  assurance  of 
Christian  faith,  that  those  we  have  loved  on  earth  still  live, 
and  are  still  ours,  after  the  hand  of  death  has  separated 
them  from  us  for  a  while. 

Recapitulation. 

In  conclusion,  I  may  briefly  sum  up  the  truths,  which, 
under  the  veil  of  a  symbolism  now  well-nigh  forgotten,  come 
before  us  in  the  language  of  this  Inscription. 

Christ  is  here  set  forth  as  the  cause  of  the  regenerate 
life  to  man.     This  life,  imparted  at  the  first  in  heavenly 

*  Vest.  Christ.  PI.  i. 


THE  DOCTRINES  IMPLIED  IN  IT.  I  87 

waters  (ver.  2),  is  not  a  gift  only,  but  a  gift  that  entails  re- 
sponsibility— even  this,  that  we  cherish  that  life  by  drinkino- 
of  the  unfailing  streams  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  (ver.  3,  4) ; 
streams  at  once  of  grace  and  of  knowledge.  And  yet 
further,  Christ,  the  Healer  and  Deliverer  of  His  saints  (lajrrjo 
ccylc>jv)y  is  not  only  the  Source  of  new  life  to  them  that  are 
His,  when  first  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  His  grace, 
but  the  Food  and  Sustenance  of  their  spiritual  life  from  the 
beginning  even  unto  the  end  — '  Christus  passtcs,'  is  in  such 
sense  '  Piscis  assus'  that  His  Body  given  for  us  on  the  cross 
is,  in  a  mystery  beyond  our  understanding,  but  not  beyond 
our  faith,  the  food  whereof  they  eat  and  drink  whom  Christ 
hath  made  His  own.  And  the  same  Saviour  ceaseth  not 
from  His  care  for  us  when  the  short  span  of  our  life  is  at  an 
end  :  He  is  our  guiding  Light  through  the  dark  valley 
to  the  Paradise  of  light  and  rest  which  lieth  beyond,  the 
Light  of  them  that  have  died  in  the  faith,  as  He  is  the 
Liofht  of  them  that  live  therein.  All  these  are  truths  which 
find  expression  in  the  touching  memorial  of  primitive  Chris- 
tian belief,  the  representation  of  which  is  now  in  your  hands. 
I,  for  one,  cannot  but  feel,  that  in  tracing,  under  a  symbolism 
which  belonged  to  an  age  now  long  since  passed,  the  truths 
which  are  our  common  inheritance,  we  are  dealing  with 
antiquity  more  truly,  and  withal  more  reverently,  than  if  our 
first,  perhaps  our  only  thought,  were  to  seek  support  there- 
from for  some  modern  formula  of  controversial  theology, 
unknown  alike  to  Scripture  and  to  the  primitive  Church. 
If  new  formulse  for  the  expression  of  sacramental  truths  be 
indeed  a  necessity,  let  us  seek  to  make  them,  as  was  this 
IX0TC  symbol  of  old,  a  watchword  of  love  and  peace, 
and  of  unity  with  one  and  the  same  Saviour  ;  not  a  Shib- 


1 88  THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 

boleth  of  division,  which  shall  sunder  in  two  hostile  camps 
those  whom  God  has  bidden  as  brethren  to  dwell  together 
in  unity. 

Yet  one  lesson  more,  however,  and  one  much  needed 
in  these  days,  the  contemplation  of  a  monument  such  as 
this  may  well  teach  us.  We  may  see  herein  an  evidence 
that  the  same  primitive  truths,  of  divine  revelation,  may  be 
held,  in  common  with  ourselves,  by  men  who,  from  peculi- 
arities of  previous  habit,  or  of  outward  circumstance,  through 
the  diverse  influences  of  varying  times  and  different  coun- 
tries, have  learnt  to  express  their  belief  under  very  different 
forms.  We  may  thankfully  believe  this  for  our  comfort, 
even  in  these  days,  when  controversy  is  so  bitter  upon  this 
Sacrament  of  Peace ;  believe,  and  thankfully,  that  men  differ 
far  less  in  the  reality  of  their  own  belief,  than  they  differ  in 
respect  of  the  diverse  formulae.  Scriptural,  Patristic,  or 
mediaeval  and  modern,  under  which  they  give  expression  to 
that  belief 


APPENDIX. 


A. 

Oti  the  Terms  of  Worship,  Aar^s/a  and  n^oT%.vvf^fjic,  employed 
in  Scripture  and  in  the  early  Fathers. 

In  the  title  given  to  the  first  paper  in  this  series  I  have  purposely  avoided 
using  the  term  Mariolatry,  because,  in  doing  so,  I  should  have  assumed  as 
true,  at  first  starting,  what  Roman  writers  would  earnestly  deny,  viz.  that 
the  worship  now  paid  to  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  Roman  Church  is  such  as 
can  only  rightly  be  rendered  unto  God. 

I  need  hardly  remind  any  readers  of  this  volume,  that  Roman  theo- 
logians distinguish*  carefiiUy  between  the  ttrms,  Doiileia  and  Za^rm,  and 
Cultus,  answering  to  our  own  '  Worship '  in  its  older  and  more  compre- 
hensive use.  This  last  is  a  generic  term,  embracing  various  kinds  of  worship, 
both  that  which  is  proper  to  God  alone,  and  that  which  may  be  rendered 
to  men  (as,  e.  g.,  to  '  worshipful '  magistrates  and  others  in  authority).  And 
when  they  would  distinguish  accurately,  and  in  technical  terms,  these  two 
kinds  of  worship,  they  make  use  of  the  two  words,  Doulia  {^ovXela)  and 
Latria  (XarpEia),  which  they  have  adopted  from  the  Greek  for  the  purpose. 

Lastly,  the  word  Adoratio  (with  adofarc),  and  its  equivalent,  the  Greek 
TrporrKvi'Tja-iQ,  are  terms  which  they  regard  as  properly  importing  Divine 
worship,  but  which  are  not  to  be  considered  as  absolutely  limited  to  such 
use. 

Latria. 

As  to  Latria,  then  (as  far  as  the  word  is  concerned),  there  is  no  dif- 
ference between  the  Roman  Church  and  our  own.  Both  are  agreed  that 
there  is  a  kind  of  worship  which  should  be  offered  to  God,  and  to  God 
alone.  Both  are  agreed  that  the  term  Xarpela  is  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  in 
ecclesiastical  use,  used  always  with  reference  to  such  worship.  As  to  this 
word,  therefore,  no  detailed  notice  is  necessary. 


*  See  Petavius,  'De  Theolog.  Dogmat.'  lib.  xv.  c.  ii  s(/i/. 


192  APPENDIX. 

But  the  two  words,  TrpoaicuyrjenQ  and  adoratio  {Tz^oaKWEiv  and  adorare), 
have  an  important  history  attaching  to  them,  and  in  making  this  history 
clear  we  shall  have  advanced  a  long  way  towards  the  solution  of  some 
difficult  theological  problems. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  distinguish  the  uses  of  these  terms  in  four 
periods. 

§  I.  X\^oaKvvr\aiQ  rt';^^  Adoratio  in  Classical  Use. 

In  order  to  understand  the  use  of  these  words  in  the  earlier  writers, 
before  the  Christian  era,  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  strong  contrast  of  feeling 
between  the  servile  nations  of  the  East,  habitually  under  despotic  govern- 
ment, and  the  free  nations  of  the  West,  to  whom  an  absolutely  despotic 
government  was  wholly  exceptional,  and  utterly  repugnant. 

That  difference  of  feeling  showed  itself  among  other  things  in  this,  that 
Eastern  peoples  prostrated  themselves  with  the  same  attitude  of  outward 
adoration  (upon  their  knees,  and  even  with  their  faces  touching  the  ground) 
before  their  kings,  as  they  did  before  their  gods.  But  to  the  free  Greek, 
and  to  the  Roman,  such  abject  deference  was  utterly  contemptible,  and 
held  unworthy  of  any  true  man.  They  would  bow  themselves  before  their 
gods;  they  would  not  bow  themselves,  in  the  like  attitude  of  prostrate 
supplication,  before  men. 

This  feeling  is  well  illustrated  by  a  story  told  by  Herodotus  (lib.  vii. 
c.  136).  He  is  speaking  of  the  two  Spartans  who  volunteered  to  give 
themselves  up  to  Xerxes,  in  atonement  for  the  violence  done  to  the  envoys 
from  Darius.  When  they  came  into  the  king's  presence,  the  guards  in 
attendance  tried  to  force  them  to  prostrate  themselves,  in  Eastern  fashion, 
before  the  king  :  TrpocTKvreeiy  ftaanXia  Trpofnriri'oyTag.  But  they  said  that  no 
force  should  compel  them  to  do  this,  for  they  were  not  in  the  habit  of  pro- 
strating themselves  before  any  7?iere  vian :  ovte  yap  acpi  Iv  vo/zw  elyai 
avdpujTroy  irpoaKwhiv*  With  this  may  be  compared  Xenophon.  Anab. 
i.  6,  §  10.  To  the  same  effect  are  the  words  of  Q.  Curtius  (' De  Rebus 
Gestis,'  &c.  lib.  viii.  c.  5,  §  6).  Speaking  of  a  time  when  Alexander  the 
Great  claimed  to  be  the  son  of  Jupiter,  and  to  be  approached  with  divine 
honours,  he  says,  that,  in  accordance  with  his  wish,  the  Macedonians 
'  venerabutidos  ipsiwi  salutare,  more  Persarum,  prosternentes  humi  corpora.' 

*  Compare    Aristotle,    '  Rhet.'    i.  5,   9.  ceremonies,  i.  e.   unknown  to   Greek  usage. 

After   defining    t/^>5,    'honour,'    as    being  and    these    are    •r^ixrxvt'nirus     ku)   iKtrraftis, 

ffnfiiiov   lui^yiTHiYis  So|»f ,   he   enumerates   a  bodily  prostrations,  and  other  such  extrava- 

variety  of  ways  in  which  honour  is  custom-  gancies. 
arily  shown,  and  then  adds  ra,  fia^fiu^iKx, 


TERMS  OF  WORSIIir.  I  93 

But  perhaps  the  most  suggestive  passage  of  all,  referring  to  this  subject, 
is  that  of  Plutarch  in  the  life  of  Themistocles,  where  he  says,  that  on 
Themistocles  coming  to  the  Persian  court  he  was  instructed  by  Artabanus 
to  prostrate  himself,  after  the  Persian  fashion,  before  the  king,  if  admitted 
into  his  presence.  '  You  Greeks,'  added  the  Persian,  '  are  said  to  regard 
liberty  and  equality  more  than  aught  else  ;  but  we  Persians  have  many 
good  customs,  and  among  them  all  none  better  than  this  of  honouring  the 
king,  and  luorshipp'uig  him  as  the  image  of  God^  7uho  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
....  For  the  customs  of  our  country  suffer  not  that  the  king  should  give 
ear  to  any  who  hath  not  first  (worshipped)  done  him  homage.'  Bao-tXel 
ya^  ov  Tvarpiov  aySpog  ciKpodrrBai  f.u)  TrpoaKvin'jfTai'rcQ. 

§  2.    Use  of  these  Terms  in  Holy  Seripture. 

The  passages  above  quoted  will  suffice  to  show  the  marked  difference 
of  feeling  between  East  and  West  in  this  matter  of  prostration.  And  this 
difference  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  for  the  due  understanding  of 
Holy  Scripture.  A  native  of  Syria,  or  of  other  Eastern  lands,  might 
{TrpofTKvvtii')  prostrate  himself  before  another,  without  necessarily  implying 
any  greater  homage  than  he  would  show  to  a  king,  or  other  great  personage, 
far  his  own  superior  in  rank.  But  when  a  Roman  centurion  irpoarKvyel, 
prostrates  himself  before  Peter,  the  latter  raises  him  up,  saying,  '  Stand  up  ; 
I  myself  also  am  a  man '  (not  a  God,  as  the  action  of  Cornelius  would 
import).  And  even  in  one  brought  up  in  Eastern  habits,  this  irporTKyviqaLQ 
is  an  attitude  which  (except  to  a  king  or  an  absolute  master)  imports 
Divine  honour.  Hence  that  of  the  angel  to  St.  John  (Apocal.  xix.  10),  '  I 
fell  at  his  feet,'  says  St.  John,  irpoaKvyfiaai  uvtm,  '  to  zvorship  him.  But  he 
said  unto  me,  See  thou  do  it  not :  I  am  thy  felkno-scrvant  .  .  Worship  God.' 
Tw  Gew  ■KpnrjKvvqrrov.  The  same  words  recur,  almost  verbatim,m  ch.  xxii.  8, 9. 

From  a  review,  then,  of  the  New  Testament  usage  of  this  word  (which 
agrees  with  that  of  the  LXX.),  we  should  infer,  that  the  proper  connotation 
of  the  term  is  such  a  prostration  as,  even  to  Eastern  idea,  belonged  primarily 
to  God,  or  to  kings,  as  being  as  gods  upon  earth  ;  but  which  a  slave  might 
also  on  occasion  use  (Matt,  xviii.  26)  in  earnest  entreaty  to  his  lord ;  or 
one  in  grievous  need  (Matt.  xv.  25),  or  abject  misery,  towards  one  whose 
aid  he  would  implore  as  being  to  him  '  in  the  place  of  God.' 

§  3.    Use  of  Yl^oaKvvnaig  ill  early  Christian  Writers. 

The  use  of  the  word  ivpocrKvvrifnQ,  as  far  as  we  have  traced  it  hitherto,  will 
be  found  to  be  preserved,  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  vvithout  any  innovation, 

O 


194  APPENDIX. 

for  450  years;  at  the  close  of  which  tune  we  find  the  first  indication  of  any 
important  change. 

That  use  may  best  be  illustrated,  in  reference  to  our  present  subject 
(that  of  the  Cultus  of  the  Virgin  Mary),  by  the  following  remarkable 
passage  of  St.  Epiphanius,  the  '  five-tongued '  Bishop  of  Constantia  in 
Cyprus,  circ.  370  a.d. 

He  is  referring  to  a  sect  of  heretics  in  Arabia,  known  as  Collyridians. 
Rebutting  their  blasphemous  language  and  idolatrous  rites  he  says, 
'  Honour'cd  let  her  [Mary]  be  :  but  let  worship  be  paid  to  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost :'  'Ei/  Ti^r\  earrw'  aXka  IlaT))p  Kal  Yloe  teal 
"Ayioj'  Ui'EVfxa  TrpoaKweicrdu).  '  Let  none  worship  Mary  :'  Tt)y  Mapiav 
l^r]^elg  TvpoaKvveiru).  Similar  passages  occur  again  and  again  throughout 
this  section  of  his  treatise.  [Haeres.  79.] 

It  may  be  asked,  how  it  should  be  that  in  Epiphanius  alone  assertions 
such  as  these  are  to  be  found  ?  The  reply  is  a  very  simple  one  :  that  in 
no  part  of  the  Church,  whether  in  East  or  West,  had  the  idea  of  worshipping 
the  Virgin  Mary  {or  showing  her  honours  which  could  be  regarded  as  im- 
porting Divine  worship)  anywhere  been  heard  of  till,  in  Epiphanius'  time, 
two  sects  made  their  appearance  in  Arabia ;  one  of  which  was  known  as 
that  of  the  Antidicomariani,  because  of  their  denying  the  virginity  of  the 
Mother  of  our  Lord,  the  other  as  Collyridians,  because  of  the  extravagant 
honours  they  paid  her,  and  expressly  their  bringing  offerings  of  cakes 
{collyria),  possibly  with  a  kind  of  parody  upon  the  '  oblation  '  of  bread  and 
wine  made  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

These  heresies  having  arisen  (the  one  probably  a  reaction  against  the 
other),  Epiphanius  impartially  condemns  them  both,  saying  again  and 
again  (for  what  concerns  our  present  question)  what  I  have  quoted  above, 
though  with  slight  variations  of  expression. 

But  I  may  add  further,  that  what  St.  Epiphanius  says  in  direct  terms, 
and  unmistakably,  is  afhrmed  again  and  again,  by  implication,  by  other 
Fathers ;  as,  for  instance,  by  St.  Athanasius  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria. 
They  carefully  define,  not  Xarpela,  '/atria,'  only,  but  TrpoaKvi'rjtnQ,  as  due  to 
God  alone.  So  much  so,  that,  even  as  regards  our  blessed  Lord,  they 
affirm  that  worship  {■n-poaKvvrjaig)  is  due  to  Him  in  respect  of  His  divine 
nature,  not  in  respect  of  His  human  nature,  immediately  and  directly,  and 
regarded  as  ideally  (though  not  truly)  separable  from  His  Divinity.  Thus, 
St.  Athanasius,  for  example  (quoted  by  Suicer),  writes,*  '  T/ie  creature 
worships  tiot  the  creature;  but  the  servant  worships  his  master,  and  the 

*  Orat.  III.  contr.  Arianos,  torn.  i.  p.  394. 


TERMS  OF  WORSHIP.  I  95 

creature  worships  God  :'  Kr/ir^o  KTiafxa  nv  TrpoaKvrel,  ciXXo  i)oii\or  hmrurrji', 
Kai  KTiaixa  Qeuy.  Then,  after  allusion  to  the  'worship'  of  the  centurion 
rejected  by  St.  Peter  (Acts,  x.  25),  and  that  of  St.  John  rejected  by  the 
angel,  he  adds,  Ovkovv  Qeov  Ian  fiovov  to  Trpoa-KvpElerdai'  '  To  God  al07ie, 
therefore^  is  worship  due.' 


§  4.   Change  in  the  Usage  of  UpoaKvv^aig,  circ.  450  A.D. 

The  very  earliest  Avriter  (as  far  as  I  have  observed)  who  innovates  upon 
this  older  use  of  TrpoaKvrrja-iQ,  'adoration,'  is  St.  Proclus,  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople circ.  450  A.D.,  a  highly  rhetorical  writer,  who,  in  direct  contra- 
diction (as  far  as  words  are  concerned)  to  St.  Epiphanius,  already  quoted, 
asserts  that  TrpoaKvvrjeTLQ*  or  '  adoration,'  is  rendered  to  the  Virgin  Mary. 
After  enumerating  the  noble  and  saintly  women  of  earlier  times,  and  saying 
that  praise  is  given  to  one,  admiration  to  another,  and  the  like,  he  ends  by 
saying  that  '  to  Mary  also  worship  is  given '  (TrpoarKwelTcn  ical  1)  Mapla), 
because  she  has  become  Mother,  and  Handmaid,  and  Cloud,  and  Bridal 
Chamber  (daXa/doc),  and  the  Ark  of  Him  who  ruleth  over  all. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  this  change,  and  Constantinople  is  the 
place  of  all  others  in  which  we  might  expect  to  find  the  first  indications  of 
it.  For  in  the  four  hundred  years,  or  more,  which  had  already  elapsed 
since  the  establishment  of  Imperialism  at  Rome  (and  later  at  Constanti- 
nople), a  complete  change  had  been  effected  in  the  habits  of  Western 
nations  in  that  matter  of  outward  prostrations  before  men. 

The  etiquette  and  ceremonial  of  the  Imperial  court,  at  Rome  first,  and 
afterward  more  fully  at  Constantinople,  were  modelled  in  great  part  upon 
the  traditions  of  the  despotic  courts  of  the  East.  And  that  servile  adulation 
of  the  Emperors,  as  gods  upon  earth,  of  which  we  find  traces  even  in 
Horace,  found  expression,  habitually,  at  a  later  time,  in  '  adoration '  at 
Rome,  and  in  TrpoaKvyijanc,  or  abject  bodily  prostration,  at  Byzantium,  such 
as  the  free  Greeks  and  Romans  of  earlier  times  would  have  regarded  as  fit 
only  for  slaves  and  barbarians. f  These  extravagant  honours  were  paid  not 
only  to  thre  Emperors  themselves,  when  actually  present,  but  to  their 
images,  and  even  to  letters  purporting  to  contain  their  '  celestial  words,' 
or  the  expression  of  their  '  sacred  will.' 

This  outward  homage,  adopted  first  while  the  Empire  was  in  open 
opposition  to  Christianity,  was  aftenvard  continued  in  the  case  of  Christian 

*  S.  Procli  Laudatio  Deiparae  Virginis,  iv.  p.  343.  Combefis  Auctarium  Bibl.  Patt. 
Fol.    Paris.    1648.  +  See  note  above,  p.  192. 


1 96  APPENDIX. 

Emperors.  And  thus  the  old  notion  common  to  classical  antiquity,  and  to 
Holy  Scripture,  o(  TrpoaKvyrjaiQ,  or  'adoration,'  being  due  to  God  alone, 
became  more  and  more  weakened  ;  and  abject  servility  towards  earthly 
princes  paved  the  way  for  a  worship  which,  by  degrees,  became  idolatrous 
(in  practice,  though  not  in  theory),  of  angels,  of  saints,  and  among  these 
more  especially  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

And  the  lax  use  of  words  importing  worship,  and  the  breaking  down  of  the 
older  ecclesiastical  distinctions,  already  traced,  between  n/jdy  and  irporrKvyelv, 
between  co/ere  and  adorare,  which  takes  its  first  beginning  from  the  close  of 
the  fifth  century,  or  thereabouts,  is  the  natural  expression  of  this  change  in 
actual  practice.  In  mediaeval  usage,  as  we  have  already  seen,  adorare  is 
the  word .  used  of  the  homage  paid  to  an  Emperor  by  the  Pope  who  had 
just  crowned  him  (above,  p.  loi).  And  at  a  later  period  still  (early  in  the 
fifteenth  century),  of  which  we  have  also  had  occasion  to  speak  in  con- 
nexion with  the  Council  of  Florence,  we  find  the  word  T^poaKwtlv  used  by 
the  Greeks  from  Constantinople  (Syropylus  and  others)  of  every  kind  of 
formal  salutation,  from  the  most  abject  prostration  to  a  simple  inclination 
of  the  head,  or  kissing  of  the  hand. 


B. 

The  Teaching  of  the  early  Fathers  cojicerning  the 
Virgin  Mary, 

The  evidence  of  Christian  art  already  summed  up  in  the  earlier  pages  (pp. 
60,  61)  of  this  volume  is  such  as  to  show  that,  in  the  more  public  monu- 
ments expressive  of  the  deliberate  belief  of  the  Church,  no  change  was 
made  for  upwards  of  five  hundred  years  in  the  representations  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  such  as  would  support,  in  any  way,  the  later  developments  of  doctrine 
concerning  her,  both  in  the  Roman  Church  and,  in  a  much  less  degree,  in 
the  various  Churches  of  the  East. 

But  towards  the  close  of  that  period,  as  we  have  seen  reason  to  think, 
traces  may  be  found  in  less  important  works  of  Christian  art,  such  as  the 
Vetri  Antichi,  of  a  change  having  already  begun,  coincident  in  time  with 
that  utter  decay  of  primitive  learning  which  followed  closely  after  the 
invasions  of  barbarians  in  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  of  Africa,  and  of  the 


TEACHING  OF  i:arly  fathers.  197 

East,  which  they  successively  overran.  The  conclusions  to  wliich  these 
facts  point  are  strongly  confirmed  by  literary  evidence. 

For  four  hundred  and  fifty  years,  or  more,  the  language  of  the  greatest 
teachers  of  the  Church,  upon  this  subject,  is  directly  contradictory  to 
modern  Roman  doctrine. 

Petavius  himself*  quotes,  among  others  of  less  note,  St.  Basil  of  Caesarea, 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  as  using  language  which 
he,  by  no  means  extreme  among  Roman  theologians,  on  this  subject,  can 
only  describe  as  '  i/ifaiida,'  not  fit  to  be  uttered. 

The  following  are  the  passages  which  he  quotes  :  — 

I.  St.  Basil.  (379  a.d.) 

S.  Basilii  Cees.  Cappod.  Archiepisc.  [0pp.  Omnia.  Ed.  Benedict.  3  foil. 
Fol.  Paris,  1730],  ep.  cclx.  ad  Jin.  [tom.  iii.  p.  400  d].  Commenting  on 
the  words,  '  A  sword  shall  go  through  thine  own  soul  also,'  he  says,  that 
these  words  have  reference  to  the  time  of  our  Lord's  Passion  —  that  when 
Mary  saw  the  things  which  were  done,  and  heard  the  words  from  the  cross 
— then,  albeit  she  had  heard  the  witness  of  Gabriel,  and  had  learnt  the 
secret  things  of  the  Lord  as  concerning  the  divine  conception,  and  had  seen 
Christ  manifested  in  many  miracles,  yet  would  her  soul  then  be  tossed  tipon 
waves  of  doubt :  ■yevijrTerai  (prjai  rig  Kal  Trepi  t)jv  a))i'  \pv)(^i)v  (tciXoc.  'For 
need  there  was,'  he  proceeds,  '  that  the  Lord  should  taste  of  death  for  every 
man,  and  having  become  a  propitiation  for  the  world,  that  He  should  justify 
all  men  in  His  own  blood.  Therefore  shall  something  of  doubt  (that  is, 
the  sword)  affect  thee  also,  though  thou  hast  been  taught  from  above  the 
things  concerning  the  Lord,  that  so  thoughts'  (ctaXoytrrjuo/*  literally,  dis- 
putings,  and  so  doubts)  '  out  of  many  hearts  may  be  revealed.  In  this  he 
intimateth  to  us,  that  after  the  offence,  both  to  the  disciples  and  to  Mary,  that 
was  caused  by  the  cross  of  Christ,  a  speedy  healing  should  follow  from,  the 
Lord,  confirnii?ig  their  hearts  to  faith  in  Him.' 

The  language  of  St.  Chrysostom,  which  follows,  is  much  stronger. 

2.  St.  Chrysostom.  (407  a.d.) 

Hom.  in  Matt.  xliv.  al.  xlv.  [Migne,  t.  vii.  p.  525.]  Referring  to  the 
words,  '  Behold,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  stand  without,  seeking  to  speak 
unto  thee,'  and  to  our  Lord's  reply,  '  Who  is  my  mother?'  &c.,  St.  Chrysostom 
writes  as  follows  :  —  'This  He  spake,  not  as  one  ashamed  of  his  mother, 


*  Theolog.  Dogm.  de  Incarnat.  lib.  xiv.  cap.  i. 


igS  APPENDIX. 

nor  as  denying  her  that  bare  Him,  for  if  He  had  felt  such  shame  He  would 
not  have  passed  through  that  womb,  but  in  order  to  show  that  from  this 
fact  [of  her  giving  birth  to  the  Saviour]  she  will  have  no  benefit,  unless  in 
all  things  she  doeth  what  is  right.  For  what  she  then  took  in  hand  to  do 
gave  proof  of  excessive  ambition  (0t\ori/im),  for  she  was  desirous  of  showing 
to  the  people  how  she  bare  rule,  at  her  own  will,  over  her  Son  ;  for  as  yet 
she  had  no  exalted  thoughts  concerning  Him.  And  for  this  reason  her 
coming  was  unseasonable.  See,  for  instance,  the  thoughtlessness  (aTrovoia) 
both  of  her  and  them.  For  whereas  they  ought  to  have  entered  in  with 
the  multitude,  and  have  listened,  or,  if  they  would  not  do  this,  to  have 
waited  till  the  Lord  had  closed  His  discourse,  and  then  have  approached 
Him,  yet  do  they  summon  Him  out ;  and  they  do  this  in  the  sight  of  all, 
therein  showing  great  ambition,  and  wishing  to  prove  that  with  great  au- 
thority they  lay  their  commands  upon  Him.  And  the  Evangelist  showeth 
that  He  chargeth  this  upon  them  '  .  .  .  And  so  on,  more  to  the  same 
effect.  With  this  compare  his  Hom.  xxi.  on  St.  John  [Migne,  t.  viii.  p.  141], 
where  he  uses  similar  language,  saying  that  she  wished  both  to  gratify  His 
brethren  and  to  make  herself  more  distinguished  by  means  of  her  Son.  So 
again  his  Hom.  iv.  in  Matt,  i.,  where,  speaking  of  the  Annunciation,  he 
mentions  her  asking,  '  How  shall  these  things,  be  ?'  &c.,  as  a  proof  of 
human  frailty  [want  of  faith]  on  her  part. 

3.  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  (444  a.d.) 

This  writer,  who  was  regarded  by  his  contemporaries  in  the  fifth  century 
as  the  great  champion  of  the  true  faith,  uses  language  concerning  the  Virgin 
Mary  closely  resembling  that  of  St.  Chrysostom,  and  which  is,  in  some 
respects,  even  more  disparaging ;  as  when,  for  example,  he  says  that  none 
can  wonder  that  she,  as  a  mere  woman,  should  have  given  proof  of  a  want 
of  faith,  such  as  even  Peter  was  not  exempt  from.  {0pp.  torn.  iv.  pp. 
1064,   1065.) 

Such  is  the  language  of  the  Fathers  for  the  first  five  hundred  years ;  and 
what  can  a  writer  so  learned  as  Petavius  allege  in  reply  ?  First,  that  in  his 
opinion  the  reasons  are  very  weak  on  which  these  various  Fathers  ground 
their  statements.  It  is  strange  that  he,  and  that  others  who  follow  in  his 
wake,  should  not  see,  that,  whether  those  reasons  be  strong  or  weak,  is  a 
question  which  in  no  way  invalidates  the  conclusion  that  no  such  doctrine  as 
the  Ro77ian  CMp'ch  now  holds  coidd  have  been  ever  dreamed  of  at  the  time 
when  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Basil,  St.  Cyril,  and  the  rest  whom  he  quotes, 
wrote  and  spoke  in  the  terms  they  did. 


TEACHING  OF  EARLY  FATHERS.  1 99 

Language  of  St.  Augistine. 

But  he  has  another  answer  to  make,  which  requires  somewhat  fuller 
consideration.  He  appeals  (as  writers  of  his  school  always  do)  to  a  well- 
known  passage  of  St.  Augustine,  which  he  describes  as  a  testimony  in  proof 
that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  never  guilty  of  any  act  of  sin  ('  nwiquam  actuate 
pcccatum  ad/nisisse').  How  far  this  holds  good  my  readers  may  best  judge 
by  examining  the  passage  itself.  Before  doing  so,  however,  it  may  be  well 
to  remind  ourselves  what  was  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine  in  other  passages 
concerning  '  Christ  alone  without  sin.' 

The  following  passages  will  serve  to  show  what  this  was  :  — 

'  De  Peccatorum  Meritis  et  Remissione,'  lib.  i.  c.  29.  — '  One  only  was 
born  toiihout  sin,  whom  a  Virgin  conceived.'  '  Solus  sine  peccato  natus 
est,  quem  sine  virili  complexu,  non  concupiscentia  carnis,  sed  obedientia 
mentis,  virgo  concepit.' 

Ibid.  lib.  xi.  c.  i. — He  states  the  subject  of  his  present  inquiry  to  be, 
whether  any  one  was  either  then  living,  or  had  lived  in  time  past,  or  ever 
would  live,  while  the  world  lasted,  without  any  sin  whatsoever  ('  sine  tdlo 
onuiino  peccato'),  'with  the  exception  of  the  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.' 

Ibid.  c.  20. — In  this  chapter  he  answers  the  question  by  saying,  that, 
with  the  one  exception  named,  it  is  most  certain  that  no  such  person  either 
had  been  or  ever  would  be.  '  Hunc  [/.  e.  one  free  from  all  sin]  prorsus 
nisi  unum  mediatorem  .  .  .  nullum  vel  esse,  vel  fuisse,  vel  futurum  esse.' 

Ibid.  c.  24.  —  Like  many  other  passages  relating  to  the  Virgin  Mary, 
this,  for  obvious  reasons,  has  been  corrupted  by  the  later  copyists.  In  a 
very  remarkable  passage,  St.  Augustine  is  speaking  of  the  points  at  once  of 
likeness  and  of  unlikeness  between  human  nature  as  it  is  in  us,  and  that 
same  human  nature  as  it  is  in  Christ ;  between  that  divine  nature  which  is 
inherent  in  Him,  and  that  divine  nature  of  which  we  are  made  '  partakers.' 
He  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  whereas  we  are  born  in  sinful 
flesh.  And  he  concludes,  '  Solus  ergo  ille  etiam  homo  f actus,  manens  Deiis, 
peccatum  indium  habuit  unquam,  nee  sumpsit  carnem  peccati  quamvis  de 
materna  came  peccati.^  He,  therefore,  and  He  only,  remaining  God  even 
when  He  became  man,  had  never  sin  at  any  time  ;  nor  did  He  take  upon 
Him  a  flesh  that  was  of  sin  [sinful],  albeit  the  flesh  of  His  mother,  whence 
He  derived  His,  was  of  sin  [sinful].  ^ 

The  reading  '  materna  came  peccati '  (which  is  that  of  the  Benedictines) 
rests  on  the  authority  of  the  '  Vetustissimus  Codex  Corbeiensis,'  and  all  the 
other  Galilean  MSS.   (two  only  excepted),  and  of  all  that  were  examined  by 


200  APPENDIX* 

the  Louvain  editors.  Two  of  the  Sorbonne  MSS.  and  one  at  Monte  Casale 
read  '  de  materia  carnis  peccati  f  but  printed  editions  earlier  than  the  Bene- 
dictine commonly  altered  the  text,  and  read  ^  de  natura  earnis peccati' 

Ibid.  c.  35.  —  He  repeats  his  strong  assertion  in  a  yet  stronger  form  : — 
'  Teneamus  ergo  indeclinabilem  fidei  confessionem.  Solus  unus  est  qui 
sine  peccato  natus  est  in  similitudine  carnis  peccati,  sine  peccato  vixit 
inter  aliena  peccata,  sine  peccato  mortuus  est  propter  nostra  peccata.' 

Such  is  the  formal  teaching  of  St.  Augustine  upon  the  question  thus 
formally  proposed,  and  dogmatically  answered.  We  may  now  consider  the 
only  passage  which  Roman  theologians,  and  those  who  think  with  them, 
can  quote  with  satisfaction  upon  this  particular  question  from  the  Fathers, 
whether  in  East  or  West,  for  upwards  of  four  hundred  years  from  the  first 
beginning  of  the  Church. 

It  occurs  in  the  treatise  '  De  Natura  et  Gratia'  [Migne,  t.  x.  p.  267,] 
c.  36.  Pelagius,  while  maintaining  his  own  heretical  opinions,  had  asserted 
that  '  Abel,  Enoch,  Melchisedec,  Abraham,  Isaac  ....  Simeon,  Joseph, 
John'  (the  Baptist) — and  not  man  only  but  woman  also  —  'Deborah, 
Anna,  mother  of  Samuel,  Judith,  Esther,  the  other  Anna,  daughter  of 
Phanuel,  Elizabeth,  and  also  Mary,  the  very  mother  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  ;' —  that  these  had  not  only  not  sinned,  but  had  lived  righteously  : 
adding,  as  to  the  last  of  those  enumerated  above,  that  '  piety  required  us  to 
allow  that  she  was  without  sin  '  ('  quam  sine  peccato  esse  confiteri  necesse  esse 
pictati').  Referring  to  this  St.  Augustine  writes  as  follows:  —  'With  the 
exception,  then,  of  the  holy  Virgin  Mary,  luhom,  out  of  honour  to  the  Lord, 
I  do  not  choose  to  have  brought  into  question  when  we  are  speaking  about  acts 
of  sin  ....  with  this  exception,  if  we  could  gather  together  all  those  holy 
men  and  women  (for  holy  when  living  here  on  earth  they  were),  and  ask 
them  whether  they  were  without  sin,  what  do  we  suppose  they  would  have 
answered  ?  As  Pelagius  did,  or  as  did  John  the  Apostle  [in  saying,  '  If  we 
have  no  sin,'  &c.]  ?' 

Between  the  first  and  the  second  parts  of  the  above  there  intervenes,  as 
I  have  indicated,  a  parenthesis,  which  I  have  reserved  for  separate  notice. 
The  Benedictines  read  as  follows  :  — 

'  Unde  eni77i  scimus  quid  ei  plus  gratice  collatum  fuerit  ad  vincendum  omni 
ex  parte  peccattmi,  qucB  concipere  ac  par  ere  meruit  quern  constat  mdhuji  habuisse 
peccatum  V  But  out  of  sixteen  manuscripts  which  they  examined,  two  (two 
of  the  five  in  the  Vatican  Library)  gave  the  reading  adopted  by  Thomas 
Aquinas  (p.  iii,  qu.  27,  a.  4),  '■  Inde  enim  scimus  quod  ei  plus  gratice  collatum 
fuerit  ad  inncendum  0.  e.  p.  p.  quod  concipere  et parere,'  &c. 

According  to  the  first  reading  of  the  parenthesis  (which  is  that  oi  all  the 


TEACHING  OF  EARLY  FATHERS.  20I 

Gallican  MSS.  consulted  by  the  Benedictines,  and  of  three  out  of  five  of  those 
in  the  Vatican),  the  words  Hterally  translated  mean,  '  For  hoiu  do  we  knoia 
7vhat  more  of  grace,  for  the  over  coining  of  sin  in  every  respect,  7vas  bestotved 
upon  her,  who  tvas  found  worthy  to  conceive,  and  to  give  birth  to,  Him  of 
whom  we  know  that  He  had  no  sin  ?'  According  to  the  other,  'For  it  is 
from  this  we  hnoza  that  more  grace  7aas  bestotved  upon  her  for  the  complete 
conquering  of  sin,  because  she  was  found  worthy  to  conceive,  and  to  bear,  Him 
of  zi' horn  it  is  certaiji  that  He  was  without  sin.' 

Now  let  us  consider  what  would  result  from  this  passage  even  if  taken 
in  this  latter  form,  which  a  Roman  controversialist  would  naturally  prefer. 
We  should  have,  first  of  all,  the  plainest  possible  condemnation  from 
St.  Augustine  of  the  doctrine  now  taught  on  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
Church,  viz.  that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  born  free  from  all  sin,  original  as 
well  as  actual.  For  if,  by  greater  measures  of  grace  she  was  enabled  com- 
pletely to  conquer  sin,  it  follows  that  '  sin '  (not  necessarily  developed  in 
act,  but  yet  existing  as  a  power)  was  in  her  (so  the  context  implies)  to  be 
conquered.  We  should  have,  on  the  other  hand,  an  assertion  made  by 
St.  Augustine,  that  '  we  know  that  more  grace  was  given  her  for  the  com- 
plete conquest  of  sin,  because  she  was  deemed  worthy  to  give  birth  unto 
Him  of  whom  it  is  certain  that  He  was  without  sin.'  That  St.  Augustine 
ever  rested  a  dogmatic  assertion  so  momentous  upon  an  inference  so  illo- 
gical as  this,  it  would  require  more  than  the  authority  of  two  Vatican  MSS. 
to  convince  me.  But  assuming,  for  argument's  sake,  that  he  ^\Tote  it,  the 
utmost  result  would  be  this, —  that  St.  Augustine,  in  so  saying,  asserts,  as 
an  inference  from  our  Lord's  sinlessness,  that  the  Virgin  Mother  completely 
conquered  sin.  But  if  St.  Augustine  really  said  this,  it  would  follow 
further,  first,  that  St.  Augustine  was,  for  once  at  least,  an  exceedingly  illo- 
gical reasoner ;  and,  secondly,  that  he  was,  in  this  special  opinion  of  his, 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  greatest  authorities  of  the  early  Church,  such  as 
those  already  quoted. 

All  these  grounds  considered,  there  are  few,  I  suppose,  who  would  not 
agree  with  the  Benedictines,  and  other  editors,  in  rejecting  the  reading 
adopted  by  Aquinas,  and  found  in  two  MSS.  only.  But  if  we  fall  back  on 
the  reading  of  the  Benedictines,  we  have  a  sentence  which  (under  the  form 
of  a  question,  '  Whence  do  we  know?'  &:c.)  plainly  imphes  that  we  have  no 
knowledge  whether  the  Virgin  Mary  did  or  did  not  completely  conquer 
sin ;  and  that,  this  being  so,  he  will  not  have  her  brought  into  question  in 
such  a  matter,  out  of  regard  to  the  honour  of  the  Lord.  This  want  of 
knowledge,  in  her  case,  is  contrasted  with  the  certainty  that  our  Lord 
Himself  was  without  sin. 


202  APPENDIX. 


Whichever  reading*  be  the  true  one,  there  is  clearly  here  a  direct  con- 
tradiction to  those  very  dogmas  of  modern  Rome  in  support  of  which 
the  passage  is  alleged. 


c. 

Literary  Evidence  concerning  the  Bodily  Asstmiption 
of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

Upon  this  subject,  as  upon  so  many  others,  one  Roman  writer  has  copied 
what  he  found  asserted  by  others  before  him,  apparently  without  ever  veri- 
fying the  references  given,  and  rarely  adding  anything  to  the  statements 
which  they  found  ready  to  their  hand. 

I  may  refer,  for  an  example  of  this,  to  Pelliccia  ('  De  Christianse  Ec- 
clesije  Politia,'  libri  sex.  Neapoli,  1777).  His  statements  are  copied, 
almost  verbatim^  by  the  Abbe  Martigni,  in  his  recent  '  Dictionary  of  Chris- 
tian Antiquities ;'  and  certain  writers  among  ourselves  quote  the  book  as 
if  its  authority  were  unimpeachable. 

He  states  (tom.  ii.  p.  69  sqq.),  by  way  of  proof  of  the  very  early  date  of 
the  Feast  of  the  Assumption,  that  St.  Gregory  of  Tours  speaks  of  its  being 
observed  in  Gaul ;  that  Constantinus,  Bishop  of  Constantia  in  Cyprus, 
refers  to  the  same  festival  at  the  Seventh  CEcumenical  Council  (i.e.  Nicrea  II. 
in  the  eighth  century) ;  and,  lastly,  he  appeals  to  what  Anastasius  the 
Librarian  records  concerning  Pojijc  Sergius  I.,  who  lived  in  the  seventh 
century. 

He  does  not  quote  the  words  of  either  one  of  those  three,  but  he  affirms 
that  they  manifestly  convict  of  error  those  who  had  pretended  that  the 
festival  in  honour  of  the  Assumption  was  not  instituted  before  the  ninth 
century.  [The  Assumption  itself  being,  as  he  had  already  stated,  tJie  ascent 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  into  heaven,  body  and  soul  together.  '  Ecclesia  enim 
Mariam  cselos  petiisse  anima  pariter  atque  corpore  docet.'] 

Thus  we  have,  according  to  Pelliccia,  St.  Gregory  of  Tours,  in  the  sixth 


*  Mere  conjectural  readings  are  of  little       place  of  ^/^/V/ would  make  better  Latin  and 
worth   in   the    absence  of  MS.  evidence;       better  sense  of  the  passage, 
otherwise   I   would   suggest   that   (piin   in 


ASSUMPTION  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY.  2O3 

century,  Pope  Sergius  in  the  seventh,  Constantinus  in  the  eighth,  all  testi- 
fying to  the  existence  of  this  primitive  belief,  and  of  the  festival  by  which 
the  event  was  commemorated. 

Nothing  can  be  more  utterly  untrue  (though  I  have  no  doubt  the 
worthy  Archbishop  was  not  aware  of  his  untruth)  in  respect  of  two  out  of 
three  references:  the  third  I  have  been  unable  to  verify — that  of  Constan- 
tinus of  Cyprus. 

Gregory  of  Tours,  to  take  him  first,  says  not  a  word  of  the  '  Festival  of 
the  Assumption '  being  held  in  Gaul.  In  the  '  De  Gloria  Martynim,'  lib.  i. 
c.  9,  he  refers  to  a  festival  {fcstivitas)  in  memory  of  the  Virgin,  celebrated 
'mediante  mense  undecimo ;'  i.e.  (probably)  on  the  i8th  of  January.* 
Had  he  named  the  Feast,  he  would  probably  have  called  it  the  '  Dormitio,' 
or  '  falling  asleep  ;'  i.  e.  the  Death  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  But  even  had  he 
used  the  word  '  Assumptio,'  it  would  not  the  least  follow  that  he  meant 
what  is  nozv  meant  by  '  the  Assumption.'!  For  in  those  days,  nay,  even 
two  centuries  earlier,  as  the  language  of  Paulinus  of  Nola  shows,  this  word 
'  Assumptio '  was  used  in  speaking  of  God  '  taking  to  Himself '  any  of  His 
saints  :  so  that  the- word,  as  such.,  would  prove  nothing  at  all,  even  if  it  had 
been  used. 

But  from  another  passage  we  learn  what  particular  form  of  the  many 
stories  current  about  the  death  of  the  Virgin  St.  Gregory  had  received.  In 
the  fourth  chapter  of  the  '  Gloria  Martyrum,'  lib.  i.,  he  repeats  the  story 
contained  in  the  spurious  '  Transitus  Marise  Virginis,'  falsely  ascribed  to 
Melito  of  Sardis.  He  says,  that  when  the  Virgin  was  about  to  be  taken 
from  the  world,  the  Apostles  assembled  from  various  countries,  and  came 
to  her  house,  and  watched  with  her.  '  And  lo  !  the  Lord  Jesus  came  with 
His  angels,  and  receiving  her  soul,  delivered  it  to  the  Archangel  Michael, 
and  so  departed.  At  dawn  the  Apostles  lifted  up  her  body,  with  the  couch 
on  which  it  lay,  and  laid  it  in  a  tomb,  and  kept  watch  over  it,  expecting 
the  coming  of  the  Lord.  And  lo  !  a  second  time  He  stood  by  them,  and 
receiving  the  holy  body  in  a  cloud,  bade  that  it  should  be  conveyed  to 
Paradise ;  where  now,  her  soul  being  reunited  to  the  body,  exulting,  to- 
gether with  His  elect,  she  enjoys  the  blessings  of  eternity,  which  shall 
never  end.'  Her  soul  is  in  Paradise  (not  in  heaven)  according  to  St.  Gre- 
gory, as  are  the  souls  of  God's  elect  departed  this  life.     She  differs  from 


•  He   generally  speaks   of  the   year  as  of  St.  Martin  (' De  Mir.  S.  Martini,' c.  32). 

beginning  with  March.  Bcde,    and   other   Latin   writers,    use   the 

t  Thus  he  speaks  of  the  '  Assumptio  '  of  word  in  the  same  way  in  speaking  of  the 

St.  Andrew  ('De  G.  M.'  lib.  i.  c.  31)  and  'departure'  of  the  faithful. 


204  APPENDIX. 

them,    as  it  would  seem,  in   St.  Gregory's  belief,   in  this   only,  that  her 
body  is  in  Paradise  as  well  as  her  soul. 

But  where  is  the  '  ccelos  pdiissc,'  the  ascending  into  heaven,  both  body 
and  soul,  of  which  Pelliccia  so  confidently  speaks  ?  Not  one  word  of  this 
does  St.  Gregory  say,  from  the  beginning  of  his  book  to  the  end. 

Failing  this,  what  shall  we  say  of  Anastasius  and  Sergius  I.  ?  The 
passage  referred  to  is  this: — Sergius,  anno  Christi  687  (p.  164),  'Hie 
statuit  .  .  .  .  ut  diebus  Annuntiationis  Domini,  Nativitatis,  et  Dormitiojiis 
Sanctce  Del  Genitricis  ....  litania  exeat  a  Sancto  Adriano^  &c.  In  other 
words,  he  alludes  to  a  festival  known  as  the  '  Dormitio,'  or  '  Falling  asleep,' 
of  the  Virgin  Mary — the  very  same  word  which  is  constantly  used  in  the 
Catacombs,  and  elsewhere,  of  the  death  of  the  faithful  generally ;  and 
Avhich,  therefore,  like  the  Greek  title  of  this  festival,  the  Koiixrjtne,  proves 
nothing  at  all  as  to  any  belief  of  her  '  Assumption  into  Heaven.' 

If  the  passage  in  the  '  Actio  Quarta '  of  the  Seventh  General  Council 
could  be  found,  I  have  little  doubt  that  Constantinus  would  be  found 
speaking  in  like  manner  of  the  '  Koifi-qmg  of  the  holy  Theotokos  ;'  a  phrase 
which  simply  proves  nothing  as  to  the  acceptance  t/ie/i  of  a  doctrine  like 
that  of  modern  Rome. 

The  above  will  serve  as  examples  of  what  Roman  writers  say.  The 
following  will  give  some  idea  of  what  they  leave  wisaid. 

One  Adamanus  (or  Adamnanus)  was  abbot  of  a  monastery  '  in  insula 
Hye7isi^  off  the  coast  of  Scotland,  and  died,  when  nearly  eighty  years  old, 
in  the  year  704  a.d.  He  received  in  hospitality  St.  Arculfus,  who  had 
been  a  traveller  in  the  Holy  Land,  and  took  down  from  his  lips  a  de- 
scription of  the  holy  places  his  visitor  had  seen.* 

Upon  the  subject  of  the  supposed  Tomb  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the 
Valley  of  Jehoshaphat  he  writes  as  follows  :f — '  Sanctorum  locorum  sedulus 
frequentator  Sanctus  Arculphus  Sanctse  Marias  ecclesiamj  in  valle  Josaphat 
frequentabat  cujus  .  .  .  .  in  orientali  parte  altarium  habetur :  ad  dextram 
vero  ejus  partem  Sanctae  Marise  inest  saxeum  cavum  sepulchrum,  in  quo 
aliquando  sepulta  pausavit.  Sed  de  eodem  sepulchro  quomodo,  vel  quo 
tempore,  vel  a  quibus  personis,  sanctum  corpusculum  ejus  sit  sublatum, 
vel  quo  loco  resurrectionem  expect  at  nullus,  7 it  fertur,  pro  certo  scire  potest. 
.  .  .  Ita  nobis  frater  Arculphus  pronuntiavit,  sanctorum  visitator  locorum, 
qui  haec  quae  nos  describimus  propriis  conspexit  oculis.' 


*  De  Locis  Sanctis.     Migne,    P.  C.  C.  J  For  details  as  to  this  church  see  Qua- 

torn.  Ixxxviii.  p.  722  si/i/.  resmius,    '  Terra;  Sanctii;  Ehicidatio,'  Ant- 

t  Ibid.  lib.  i.  c.  xiii.  werp,  fol.  1 639,  torn.  ii.  pp.  23S,  248,  &c. 


ASSUMPTION  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY,  205 

Such  was  the  account  given  by  Arculphus,  coming  fresh  from  the  very 
spot,  even  as  late  as  the  eighth  century.  He  had  seen  tliere  an  empty 
sepulchre,  which,  as  he  was  told,  and  as  he  evidently  believed,  was  that  of 
the  Virgin  Mary.  But  when,  or  by  whom,  the  body  had  beeti  removed,  or  in 
what  place  it  was  awaiting  the  resurrection ;  of  this,  he  said,  no  one  could  say 
anything  for  certain. 


Gradual  Development  of  the  Apocryphal  Story  of  the  Assumption. 

As  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  apocryphal  legends  of  this  kind 
(since  sanctioned  as  integral  portions  of  the  Christian  faith  by  the  Roman 
Church)  grew  up  and  took  shape  in  mediaeval  times,  it  may  be  well  to  trace 
this  somewhat  more  carefully  in  its  successive  stages. 

1.  The  first  germ  of  it  may  be  detected  in  an  expression  used  by  Epi- 
phanius  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.  In  his  book  on  Heresies 
(Hser.  78)  he  says,  in  speaking  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  that  Scripture  is  wholly 
silent  as  to  her  later  life :  '  whether  or  no  she  went  with  St.  John  to  Ephesus 
— nay,  whether  she  be  dead  or  no,  we  know  not :'  Kav  re  olv  ridrriKev  ohic 
eyvw^ev.  Then  he  refers  to  two  passages  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  he 
thinks  may  possibly  contain  traces  of  the  truth  concerning  her.  One  is 
that  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  concerning  the  Dragon  and  the  Woman, 
to  whom  were  given  the  wings  of  an  eagle,  that  she  fled  away  into  the 
wilderness,  &:c.  Of  this  he  says,  '  Perhaps  this  may  be  fulfilled  in  her  [the 
Virgin  Mary] :  yet  do  I  not  by  any  means  so  determine.  And  I  say  not 
that  she  abode  without  death,  but  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  do  I  afiirm 
that  she  is  dead.' 

This  '  not  knowing '  and  '  not  affirming '  is  the  more  notable,  because 
Epiphanius  had  been  at  Jerusalem  among  other  places,  and  it  is  evident 
that  he  knew  nothing,  either  by  tradition  or  otherwise,  of  a  tomb  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  in  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat. 

2.  This  last  remark  applies  equally  to  other  Greek  writers.  Eusebius 
('  In  Vita  Constantini '),  Socrates  ('  Hist.'  lib.  i.  c.  xiii.),  Sozomen  (lib.  i. 
c.  i.),  speak  of  the  holy  places  found  in  the  time  of  Constantine,  and  none 
of  them  make  any  mention  of  this. 

3.  Cardinal  Baronius  (ad  ami.  48)  quotes,  as  from  the  'Chronicon'  of 
Eusebius,  words  (which  I  have  been  unable  to  find)  to  this  effect.  Writing 
of  the  year  48  a.d.  he  represents  him  as  saying,  ^  Maria  Virgo  Christ i 
Mater  ad  Filium  in  ccelum  assumitur,  ut  quidam  fiiisse  sibi  revelation 
scribunt.'' 


206  ArPENDIX. 

If  the  passage  be  genuine  (much  of  his  '  Chronicon '  is  not),  it  is  indi- 
cative of  an  early  date  (fourth  century  at  the  latest)  for  the  first  appearance 
of  the  story,  put  out  first  (as  this  passage  implies)  by  some  private  persons 
on  the  faith  of  a  supposed  'revelation'  on  the  subject.  Of  these  reve- 
lations we  shall  hear  more  as  we  go  on. 

4.  St.  Jerome  had  lived  many  years  at  Bethlehem  and  at  Jerusalem, 
and  often  describes  the  holy  places  (as  in  his  Epist.  xxvii.  and  in  the  '  Liber 
de  Locis  Hebraicis '),  and  nowhere  makes  any  mention  of  this  :  nor  does 
he  know  anything  of  the  Assumption  into  heaven  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
herself     [For  the  letter  of  the  pseudo-Jerome  see  No.  8  below.] 

But  shortly  after  his  time  (so  the  evidence  now  to  be  adduced,  if 
genuine,  would  seem  to  prove)  the  discovery  of  an  empty  sepulchre,  supposed 
to  be  that  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  must  have  taken  place.  According  to  Nice- 
phorus  (writing  in  the  eleventh  century),  the  Empress  Pulcheria  (who  died 
A.D.  453)  asked  the  then  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  (Juvenalis,  sed.  429-457) 
to  send  the  relics  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  to  Constantinople,  to  be  a  pro- 
tection to  the  Imperial  city.  The  Patriarch  replied  (according  to  Nice- 
phorus,  '  Ecc.  Hist.'  lib.  xv.  c.  xiv.)  by  telling  her,  on  the  authority  of  '  an 
ancient  and  most  true  tradition,^  the  story  of  the  Assumption,  much  as  we 
find  it  in  later  authors.  Nicephorus  seems  to  have  taken  his  details  from 
Dionysius  the  (so  called)  Areopagite.* 

5.  The  apocryphal  book  known  as  the  '  Transitus  beatae  Marige  Vir- 
ginis,'  must  have  become  known  in  the  West  in  the  course  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, as  it  was  formally  condemned  in  a  Roman  Council  under  Gelasius  in 
the  year  496  a.d.  It  was  from  this  book,  evidently,  that  Gregory  of  Tours 
derived  the  account  we  have  already  quoted  (above,  p.  203). 

6.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  (so  called),  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century 
probably,  in  his  treatise  '  De  Divinis  Nominibus,'  lib.  i.  c.  iii.  (Migne, 
Series  Graeca,  tom.  iii.  p.  681),  speaks  as  if  he  had  been  present  with  the 
Apostles  and  others,  and  had  seen  the  body  of  the  Virgin  after  her  death. 
He  says  not  a  word  here  of  her  'Assumption  into  Heaven.'  But  Michael 
Syngelus,  in  his  Life  of  Dionysius  (ibid.  tom.  iv.  p.  683),  makes  this  addi- 
tion, saying  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  that  after  she  had  been  placed  in  the  tomb 
etc  TTiv   virepovpaviov  areXijcpdj]  \iJL,iy   )/   Trai'Ttor  twp  ovpat'iwv  vireprepa   Svva- 

7.  Of  uncertain  date,  and  unknown  authorship,  are  two  spurious  docu- 

*  Baronius,   ad  ann.  48,  allows  that  he  sa'ws  to  suggest  (what,  no  doubt,  he  would 

can  find  no  trace  of  the  story  of  the  As-  have    not    admitted)    that    the    discovery 

sumption  before  the  discovery  of  the  empty  gave   rise   to   the   story.       Nothing   more 

sepulchre  spoken  of  by  Juvenalis.    He  even  probable. 


ASSUMPTION  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY 


207 


ments  concerning  the  Assumption  (condemned  as  sucli  by  Baronius  and 
other  Romans,  as  well  as  by  writers  of  our  own),  one  of  which  is  attributed 
to  St.  Jerome,  the  other  to  St.  Augustine.  This  latter  (Migne,  torn.  vi. 
p.  1 142)  is  believed  to  be  of  the  eighth  century  by  the  Roman  editors. 
The  writer  treats  the  question  as  one  in  which  there  is  no  authority  for  our 
guidance.  He  argues,  on  cl  priori  grounds,  that  God  could  raise  the  Virgin 
to  heaven — that  it  was  fitting  He  should  do  so;  whence  we  may  conclude 
(so  the  author  thinks)  that  He  did  do  so. 

8.  The  letter  attributed  to  St.  Jerome  has  quite  a  history  of  its  own. 
It  is  addressed  ad  Paulam  et  Eustochiutn,  '  De  Assumptionc  beatce  Maricn.' 
It  is  a  manifest  forgery,  as  Baronius  is  at  pains  to  prove,  and  does  prove ; 
but  it  was  not  known  to  be  so  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  results  were 
curious.  The  pseudo-Jerome  refers  to  the  story  of  the  Assumption,  but 
says  (0pp.  ed.  BB.  tom.  v.  p.  83),  '  Quomodo  vel  quo  tempore  aut  a  quibus 
personis  sanctissimum  corpus  ejus  inde  [a  sepulchro]  ablatum  fuerit,  vel 
ubi  transpositum  ;  utrumne  resurrexit  {sic),  nescitur,  quamvis  nonnuUi  as- 
truere  velint  eam  jam  resuscitatam,  et  beata  cum  Christo  immortalitate  in 
cgelestibus  vestiri.'  These  are  questions,  he  admirably  adds,  about  which 
'  propter  cautelam  (salva  fide)  pio  magis  desiderio  opinari  oporteat,  quain 
incofisulte  definire  quod  sine  periculo  7iescitur.' 

This  language  (supposed  to  be  that  of  St.  Jerome)  was  read  on  certain 
festivals  in  some  churches  in  the  Middle  Ages.  St.  Anthony  of  Padua 
could  not  bear  to  hear  these  doubts  thrown  on  the  truth  of  the  Assumption, 
and  would  not  go  to  matins  (so  the  story*  is  told)  for  fear  of  hearing  this 
read.  Thereupon  an  angel  appeared  to  him,  and  said,  '  Why  will  you  not 
go  to  matins,  Anthony?'  He  replied,  that  he  could  not  bear  to  hear  the 
aforesaid  '  lection.'  *  On  his  so  saying,  straightway  the  Blessed  Virgin  ap- 
peared before  him,  attended  by  a  great  company  of  angels ;  and  Anthony 
fell  at  her  feet,  and  earnestly  begged  to  know  the  certainty  of  this  mystery. 
The  Blessed  Virgin  replied,  "  Fear  not,  Anthony,  both  to  believe  and  to 
teach  this  truth."  '  '  Secure,  Antoni,  veritatem  hanc  et  credere  et  praedicare 
potes.' 

But,  says  Quaresmius,  in  relating  all  this,  'Quid  de  beato  Hieronymo?' 
What  is  to  be  said  of  St.  Jerome,  when  the  Virgin  Mary  herself  says  that 
what  he  doubts  is  certainly  true  ?  He  is  able  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer. 
In  the  'Revelations  of  St.  Bridget,' lib.  vi.  c.  Ix.,  'Dixit  Mater  Dei  ad 
Brigettam,    Hieronymum   non  dubitasse  de  ejus  Adsumptione,  sed  quia 

*  Auctor  Pomerii   Sermonem  de  Beata  Virgine,    lib.   x.    pt.    i.    art.   3,    apud  Qua- 
resmium. 


208  APPENDIX. 

determinate  non  fuerat  revelata  noluisse  definire.  "  Quia  Hieronymus  non 
dubitavit  de  Assumptione  mea,  sed  quia  Deus  non  revelavit  aperte  hujus- 
modi  veritatem,  ideo  Hieronymus  maluit  pie  dubitare  quam  definire  non 
ostensa  a  Deo." ' 

A  further  'revelation'  on  the  same  subject  will  be  found  in  lib.  vii. 
c.  xxvi.  of  the  '  Revelations '  of  the  same  saint.  '  Ego  postquam  Filius 
mens  ascendit  ad  cselos  vixi  in  mundo  xv  annos,  et  tanto  tempore  plus 
quantum  est  de  Festo  Ascensionis  ejusdem  Filii  mei  usque  ad  mortem 
meam,  et  tunc  mortua  jacui  in  isto  sepulchre' 

9.  Modestus,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  early  in  the  seventh  century, 
alludes  to  the  traditions  about  the  death  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  as  being  what 
none  of  his  predecessors  had  been  in  the  habit  of  discoursing  upon,  and 
takes  occasion  to  do  so  himself  Photius,  in  his  '  Bibliotheca,'  No.  cclxxv. 
ad  fin.,  seems  to  doubt  the  authenticity  of  this  'Encomion.'*  He  does 
not  give  the  details  of  the  story  as  they  are  given  by  later  writers,  but  says 
that  'she  was  translated  /.lerwKia-dri  h'  t7j  avu)  'Iepov(Ta\i]fx  —  to  the  Jerusalem 
that  is  above  .  .  .  and  she  has  been  made  higher  than  cherubim  and  sera- 
phim in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  being  set  forth  in  truth  as  the  mother  of 
their  Lord.' 

10.  Andreas  Cretensis,  in  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  hints  at 
the  Story  of  the  Assumption,  but  does  not  state  it  in  detail,  f 

11.  The  language  of  Arculphus,  quoted  by  Adamnanus,  '  De  Locis 
Sanctis,'  which  is  a  little  later  in  date  than  the  last  referred  to,  has  been 
already  quoted  (p.  204). 

12.  John  Damascene  (arc.  756  a.d.)  gives  the  story  in  full  detail.  And 
this  reappears  three  centuries  later  in  Nicephorus,  '  Hist.  Feci.'  xi.  c.  xxi., 
and  XV.  c.  xiv. 

13.  Returning  to  the  West,  a  variety  of  concurrent  evidence,  too  minute 
to  be  given  here  in  detail,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  in  the  time 
of  Charlemagne  that  the  ^ Dormitio''  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  other  words 
the  anniversary  of  her  death,  became  changed  into  the  Festival  of  the 
Assumption.  One  fact  out  of  many  may  be  mentioned.  In  the  '  Capitu- 
laries '  of  Charlemagne  (lib.  i.  c.  clviii.),  after  enumeration  of  the  principal 
festivals  (Natalis  Domini,  S.  Stephani,  Epiphania,  &c.),  the  words  are 
added,  '  De  Adsiiinptione  S.  Alar  ice  ifdcrrogandum  relinqiiimus  .•'  implying 
that  the  question  of  the  general  observance  of  this  festival  had  not  yet 
been  definitely  settled. 

*  Photii  Myriobiblon.      Rothomag.  fol.  1653,  p.  1528. 
t  Homil.  in  Dormitionem  Marice  apud  Galland.  xiii.    147. 


ASSUMPTION  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY.  2O9 

14.  In  the  Council  of  Mayence  in  the  year  813  a.d.  (Mansi,  xiv.  73), 
the  thirty-sixth  canon  is  as  follows  :—  'Festos  dies  in  anno  celebrare  san- 
cimus.  Hoc  est,  diem  dominicum  Paschae  ....  nativitatem  S.  Johannis 
Baptistse,  Assumptioncm  S.  Marice  ....  dedicationem  S.  Michaelis,'  &c. 

This,  as  contrasted  with  No.  13  above,  marks  the  close  of  the  eighth 
century,  or  the  beginning  of  the  ninth,  as  probably  the  time  when  the 
Festival  of  the  Assumption  (as  distinct  from  the  '  Dormitio  ')  was  authori- 
tatively recognised  in  the  Western  Church.  Leo  IV.  (middle  of  the  ninth 
century)  had  a  special  zeal  for  the  honour  of  this  festival ;  and  it  is  to  him, 
as  we  have  already  seen  {supra,  p.  53),  that  the  Church  of  St.  Clement  at 
Rome  owed  that  fresco  of  the  '  Assumption '  which  Roman  divines  so  long 
vaunted  as  being  a  work  of  the  second  or  third  century. 

At  this  point,  at  which  the  evidence  of  early  literary  monuments  is 
found  exactly  coincident  with  those  of  Christian  art  already  considered 
in  this  volume,  this  brief  summary  may  be  brought  to  a  close. 


Additional  Note. 

As  affording  an  additional  note  of  time  as  to  the  development  of  this 
and  other  doctrines  concerning  the  Virgin  Mary,  I  add  the  following  from 
a  treatise  attributed  to  S.  Ildephonsus,  Archbishop  of  Toledo,  667  a.d.* 

'  Sermo  de  Assumptione  Beatce  Marice.  —  Hodie,  fratres  charissimi,  glo- 
riosa  et  perpetua  Virgo  Maria  caelos  ascendit :  hodie  de  terris  et  de  prae- 
senti  saeculo  nequam  erepta,  secura  de  immarcessibili  gloria  ad  caeli  pervenit 
palatia.  Hac  inquam  die  meruit  exaltari  super  choros  angelorum :  quoniam 
ut  credimus  in  dextera  Patris  sublevata  in  caelis,  regni  solio,  post  Christum 
gloriosa  resedit.' 

And  at  the  end  : — 

'  Jam  ego  \leg.  ergo]  ad  eam  de  qua  loquimur  preces  et  vota  vertamus, 
opem  intercessionis  ejus  poscamus  singuli,  poscamus  omnes.  Oremus  ut 
sit  protectrix  in  prosperis,  submoveat  noxia,  suggerat  profutura,  admittat 
preces  supplicantium  intra  sacrarium  divinitatis.' 

Of  this  St.  Ildephonsus  we  are  told  by  Joannes  de  Trettenhem,  Abbas 
Spanhemensis  ('Lib.  de  Scriptoribus  Ecclesiasticis'),  that  the  B.  V.  M.  was 
so  pleased  with  his  book  '  De  Virgin.'  &c.,  that  she  appeared  to  him  with 
the  book  in  her  hand,  and  thanked  him  '■pro  tali  servitio^    And  he,  wishing 

*  B.  Hildephonsi  Archiepiscopi  Toletani  de  Virginitate  S.  Mariae  Liber.  Ed. 
Peuendartius.     Parisiis,    i2mo.    1576. 

P 


2IO  APPENDIX. 

to  lionour  her  still  more  highly,  '  coiistitidt  ut  celebraretur  sollennitas  ejus 
singulis  minis  octava  die  ante  Natalem  Domini ;  quce  sollennitas  jam  obtinuit 
nt  per  iiniversam  jideliiim  Ecclesiam  in  honore  purissimce  Conceptionis  ejus 
celebretur  vi.  Idus  Decembrist 


D. 


Part  I. 

Indications  in  Holy  Scripture  of  the  Relation  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  Epistle  addressed  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans  is  one  which  he  could 
not  have  written  in  the  same  terms  had  he  regarded  them  as  being  already, 
or  had  through  revelation  known  that  they  were  shortly  about  to  be,  under 
the  immediate  jurisdiction  of  St.  Peter. 

He  begins  (chap.  i.  i,  5)  by  assertion  of  his  own  apostleship — an  apo- 
stleship  having  special  reference  to  all  the  Gentiles  :  Iv  wdaL  toIq  'idyeaiv 
(ver.  5),  '  among  wAom,'  he  adds,  'are  ye  also.' 

He,  on  whom  Apostleship  to  the  Gentiles  had  been  specially  conferred, 
while  that  to  the  Jews  ('the  Circumcision')  had  been  specially  delegated 
to  St.  Peter,  had  often  purposed  (ver.  15)  to  come  to  Rome,  that  he  might 
have  some  fruit  among  them,  as  among  other  Gentiles.  Though  prevented 
hitherto,  he  is  even  now  ready  and  willing  to  proclaim  the  glad  tidings 
(ver.  15)  to  them  also  that  are  at  Rome. 

At  the  end  of  his  Epistle  he  recurs  to  the  thought  of  his  special  claim 
to  be  heard  of  them,  as  being  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles 
(xv.  16) ;  and  his  language  throughout  the  two  concluding  chapters  is  that 
of  one  who,  in  the  providence  of  God,  has  a  special  right,  such  as  no  other 
had,  to  be  regarded  as  being  to  them  the  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ. 

With  all  this  compare  what  we  read  (in  Acts,  xxviii.)  of  what  occurred 
when  this  contemplated  visit  to  Rome  was  actually  made.  He  first,  as  his 
wont  was,  gathered  about  him  such  of  his  own  countrymen  as  were  there 
(ver.  17) ;  and  the  language  in  which  his  teaching,  addressing  to  them,  is 
described  (vv.  23,  24),  is  such  as  plainly  implies  that  to  them  the  word  of 


THE  SEE  OF  ROME.  2  I  I 

the  Gospel  was  for  the  first  tune  directly  and  authoritatively  addressed. 
Afterward  he  turned  to  the  Gentiles  (ver.  28),  and  for  two  whole  years 
continued  to  receive  in  his  own  hired  house  all  that  came  unto  him, 
'  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  those  things  which  concern 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' 

No  unprejudiced  person  can  doubt  that  this  was  the  first  visit  of  any 
Apostle  to  the  Roman  Church.  None,  save  in  maintenance  at  all  costs  of 
a  preconceived  conclusion,  could  suppose  that  St.  Paul  could  have  used 
language  such  as  that  above  quoted,  or  have  acted  as  there  described,  in 
reference  to  a  Church  which  by  Divine  appointment  was  already,  or  was 
just  about  to  be,  under  the  special  jurisdiction  of  St.  Peter. 

2.  With  the  above  compare  what  St.  Paul  says  in  writing  to  the  Co- 
rinthians (2  Cor.  X.  16)  of  his  not  making  his  boast  (in  respect  of  apostolic 
work)  ty  dWorpt'w  Karovi,  in  the  field  of  work  allotted  to  another. 

In  face  of  facts  such  as  these,  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  that  the 
more  modern  writers  on  the  Roman  side  are  obliged  to  give  up  as  hopeless 
the  defence  of  the  recognised  Roman  tradition,  that  St.  Peter  was  Bishop 
of  Rome  for  twenty-five  years  !  How  exactly  the  evidence  of  Holy 
Scripture,  above  alleged,  falls  in  with  that  of  the  early  monuments  edited 
in  this  volume,  I  need  not  be  at  pains  to  point  out. 


Part  II. 

Canons  of  Early  Councils  having  Refei^'ence  to 
the  Roman  See. 

The  Canons  of  Nic^ea  (a.d.  325)  and  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  381)  have 
already  been  quoted  above,  p.  87. 

Between  these  had  intervened  the  Council  of  Sardica  (a.d.  347). 

This  was  a  Western  Council,  not  a  General  Council  of  the  whole 
Church ;  and  its  canons  have  accordingly  a  much  more  Roman  character 
than  those  which  were  put  forth  by  the  CEcumenical  Councils  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries.  And  as  there  was  no  effectual  check  against  their  inter- 
polation, as  was  the  case  (see  p.  89  sqq.)  with  the  acts  of  General  Councils, 
there  is  considerable  doubt  as  to  what  the  original  text  of  the  Sardican 
Canons  may  have  been.*     Even  as  they  now  stand,  however,   they  can 

*  See  Gieseler,  '  Ecc.  Hist.'  vol.  i.  p.  432,  note  6.     Davidson's  Transl.ilion. 


2  I  2  APPENDIX. 

easily  be  reconciled  with  the  language  of  General  Councils  before  and 
after,  if  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  si?igulie  qjiczqiie  provincice,  of  which  at 
Sardica  there  was  question,  are  not  all  the  provinces  of  the  whole  Church 
throughout  the  world,  but  those  in  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  Corsica,  which 
were  subject  to  the  Roman  See,  and  constituted  the  Roman  '  Diocese.' 
This  is  clearly  implied,  for  instance,  in  the  Synodical  Letter  of  the  Council 
addressed  to  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome.  (Mansi,  iii.  p.  41.)  '  Tiia  autem 
excellens  prudentia  disponere  debet,  ut  per  tua  scripia  qui  in  Sicilia,  qui  in 
Sardinia  et  in  Italia,  sunt  fratres  nostri,  qua  acta  sunt  et  quce  deji?iita 
cognoscant.' 

By  the  Canons  of  this  Council,  if  a  Bishop  were  condemned  in  a 
council  of  his  own  province  appeal  might  be  made  '  to  Julius,  Bishop  of 
Rome.' 

'Can.  III.  Osius  Episcopus  dixit:  Quod  si  aUquis  Episcoporum  judi- 
catus  fuerit  in  aliqua  causa  et  putat  se  bonam  causam  habere  ut  iterum 
concilium  renovetur  :  si  vobis  placet  sancti  Petri  Apostoli  memoriam  hono- 
remus,  ut  scribatur  ab  his  qui  causam  examinarunt  Julio  Romano  episcopo; 
et  si  judicaverit  renovandum  esse  judicium,  renovetur,  et  det  judices.' 

Compare  Canons  IV.  and  VII.  (ai.  V.)  to  similar  effect. 


Council  of  Chalcedon.  {a.d.  451.) 

The  general  effect  of  the  Canons  of  this  Council  having  reference  to 
the  precedence  of  the  chief  Churches  in  East  and  West,  has  been  stated  in 
p.  89  of  this  volume. 

The  full  details,  which  are  of  great  interest  and  importance,  are  given 
by  Mansi,  in  his  *  Conciliorum  CoUectio,'  vol.  vii.  See  particularly  p.  370 
('  Observatio  Editorum  Romanorum')  and  p.  427. 

After  the  twenty-seven  Canons,  recognised  by  the  Western  as  well  as 
by  the  Eastern  Churches,  had  been  passed,  the  Greeks  seem  to  have  taken 
an  opportunity  when  the  Roman  Legates  were  not  present  to  bring  forward 
a  certain  schedule  (aytlli^wx)  of  their  own.  It  was  brought  under  the 
notice  of  the  Council  by  Aetius,  Archdeacon  of  Constantinople.  After  an 
expression  of  agreement  with  the  definitions  of  the  Council  of  Constanti- 
nople, the  document  goes  on  to  say,  that  '  to  the  See  of  Old  Rome,  because 
of  its  being  an  Imperial  city  {iCa  to  ftaffiXeveip'  rrji'  iroXiv  iKeLvriv),  the  Fathers 
had  assigned,  with  good  reason,  the  privileges  which  that  See  exercised. 
And  with  the  same  purpose  in  view,  the  150  godly  Fathers  assigned  equal 
privileges  {to.  'iaa  TrpEafttia)  to  the  most  holy  Throne  (See)  of  New  Rome, 


THE  SEE  OF  ROME.  2  I  3 

reasonably  judging  that  as  this  city  enjoyed '  (the  same  privileges  as  Old 
Rome  in  political  matters,  she  should  be  exalted  in  like  manner  in  things 
pertaining  to  the  Church),  '  seeing*  that  Constantinople  was  second  in 
succession  to  Rome/  [Further  details  follow  about  the  relations  of  various 
Metropolitans  to  the  'Archbishop'  of  Constantinople.]  This  document 
was  signed  by  all  the  Bishops,  the  Roman  Legates  of  course  excepted. 
The  latter  were  extremely  indignant  at  the  whole  proceeding,  and  com- 
plained of  it,  though  without  result,  to  the  Imperial  Commissioners.  It 
was  then  that  they  produced  their  interpolated  version  of  the  sixth  Nicene 
Canon.  (See  above,  p.  90.)  Whereupon  Archdeacon  Aetius  produced 
the  true  text,  and  with  this  the  third  Canon  of  Constantinople  (quoted  at 
p.  89  above)  :  Toj'  fiii'roi  KowaTai'TiyoTroXetiJC  ETriaKoirov  e'x^"'  '""  Tri)e(TJje~i<i 
Tijg  Tifiiig  fxtra  tuv    Pw/xalof  tiriaKoirov  cdi  to  avTr]v  eiyai  viav    Pw^tji'. 


E. 


Contemporary  Doaunents  in  Reference  to  the  Coiuicil 
of  Florence. 

Very  little  of  contemporary  history  of  the  Council  has  been  preserved 
(save,  possibly,  among  the  secret  things  of  the  Vatican  Library),  -written  by 
any  on  the  Latin  side.  The  only  work  of  the  kind  known  to  the  present 
writer  is  the  '  CoUationes '  of  the  Cardinal  Andreas  de  S.  Cruce,  and 
a  few  other  documents,  published  by  Horatius  Justinianus,  Librarian  of 
the  Vatican,  in  his  'Acta  Concilii  Florentini.'  (Romse,  fol.  1638.) 

On  the  Greek  side  much  more  has  been  written ;  and  amongst  other 
works,  none  equals  in  interest  the  graphic  diary  (for  such  almost  it  is) 
written  by  Syropulus,  one  of  the  ecclesiastics  in  the  suite  of  the  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople.! 

Yet  another  contemporary  document,  and  that,  in  some  respects,  the 
most  interesting  of  all,  is  still  in  existence,  and  among  the  MSS.,  strange 
to  say,  of  the  British  Museum.     Out  of  five  authentic  copies  which  were 

*   Or,   '  and  be  :    Asursgav  fAir   Exs/mv  ua'aj;j;«w<rai'. 

t  Vera  Historia  Unionis  non  vera?,  etc.  Greece  scripta  per  Sylvcstruni  Si;uropuliun 
(Syropulum).     Ilagtc-Comitis,    fol.    1660. 


214  APPENDIX. 

originally  made  of  the  Decree  of  Union,  one  alone  is  now  (I  believe) 
known  to  exist,  viz.  that  which  was  sent  by  Eugenius  IV.  to  our  own  king 
Henry  VI. 

I  had  intended  to  give  quotations  from  the  books  I  have  named  in 
illustration  of  the  second  paper  of  this  volume  ;  but  I  have  already  so  far 
exceeded  the  limits  I  had  originally  proposed,  that  I  must  content  myself 
with  merely  indicating  the  works  to  my  readers. 


F. 

Various  Readings  of  the  A^ltun  Inscription. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  the  readers  of  this  volume  to  have  before  them  a 
conspectus  of  the  principal  editions  of  the  text  of  this  Inscription  up  to 
the  present  time. 

I.     J.  P.  SECCHL* 

^Yy^voc,   ovpariov  fieiov   yevoQ  i'jTopi   (refivw 
Xprjae,   XaXuiy   (pu)y))y   ajjiftporoy   iv  (ipoTioiQ' 

QefTTreaiujv   vharuy   Tijv   (rijv,   (j)i\£,   Bcnrre   \pvx>)t'i 
"Yhamv   aevaoiQ  TrXovrodorov   (TO<pir}Q. 

'Siuyrripoq   2'   ayiwv  fie\ir}dia   \anf3are  ftpCjfxov' 
"JLadiE,  7r7»'£,   ^voTv    I-)(6vy  ^x^^^  TraXufiaig. 

'I^QyV  j^Tjpe/a   yaXiXo/w,   ciaTTora   awrep, 

ILvei^eli'  iJ.r]T)']p   ae   Xirai^e   fie,   (^wq  to   dat'OPTwy. 

2i)v  fJiV^pi   yXvKepr],   trvye   Kal   haKpvoLfriv  efiolcriv 
'IXoirffEtc  Y'lov   (Tto  f^iin'jaen   TleKTopioio. 

IXGYC,  Patre  Deo  Deus,  immortalia  sancto 

Mortales  inter  corde  loquutus  ait. 
Rite  sacris  anima  sepelitor,  amice,  sub  undis  : 

Dives  ab  aeternis  mente  redibis  aquis  : 
Sume  cibum,  Sanctis  quem  dat  Servator  alendis  ; 

*  Of  the  Order  of  Jesuits  at  Rome. 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION.  215 

Mande,  bibe,  amplectens  IXGYN  utraque  manu 
Orba  viro  mater  galilseo  pisce,  Redemtor, 
Cernere  te  prece  me  petiit,  lux  luce  carentum. 
Aschandee  pater,  vita  mihi  carior  ipsa 
Tu  cum  matre  mea  nato  lacrymante  piatus 
Pectorii,  Pater,  ipse  tui  memor  esto  precantis. 


2.     J.  FRANZ.* 

l')(dvog  ovpaviovli   ayiov   yivog,   ijropi   (TEfxvw 

Xpijae,   \af3u)y  Trrjyijy   afx(ipOTOv   iv  ftporioiQ 
Qe(77re(Tiu)v  vSariov'  Tijy   (Tfjv,   (piXe,   daXireu   xpvx'lt^ 

Ydaariv  aavaoiQ  ttXovto^otov  (ro^irjg. 
^wrrjpoQ   ^'  ayiiou  fxeXiri^ea   Xa/jfiafe  ftpwanv. 
EufJtf,   TrTj'f   Xaj3ibp,   l^Svy  ^X^^  xaXa^atg. 
I^OvQ  tx^*^'  y"P   yaXiXatu),  Ziairora   awrep, 
Ew  av  ao(T(njrr}p,  o-e  XiTai^Ofxe,  (pwQ  to  Qavovrwv. 
Ao'xaJ'caTe  Trdrcp,   TCjfxio   KEXctpurfxeye   dv/xdi, 
"Sivv  ^riTpl   "   "        Kal   a^EXfeiolcny  Efxalcnu, 
'I^dvy  bpCjv  vlov  fii't'iaEo  HeKTopiov. 

Piscis  coelestis  sancta  proles  pectore  augusto  vaticinia  edidit,  compos 
fontis  immortalis  inter  mortales  aquarum  sanctarum.  Animam  tuam, 
amice,  fove  aquis  perennibus  locupletis  sapienti^.  Salvatoris  sanctorum 
dulcem  sume  cibum,  sumtum  ede  et  bibe,  piscem  in  manibus  tenens.  Nam 
tu,  Domine  Salvator,  piscis  es,  probe  opem  [sive  auxilium]  ferens  pisci  Ga- 
lilaso  [id  est,  Christiano] ;  tibi  supplico,  luci  mortuorum.  Aschandgee,  pater 
mihi  charissime,  mea  cum  matre  .  .  .  et  fratribus  meis,  piscem  aspiciens, 
filii  memento  Pectorii. 


3.     D.  WINDISCHMANN. 

I)(Svog  ovpai'iov   (xyiov   yii'og   ijropi   (TEjuj'w 
Xpfjae  XaXu)v  Trriyijv   ajjlyporov  iv  fiporioiQ 


*  One  of  the  Editors  of  the  '  Corpus  In-  Franz  understood   the   Apostles.      '  Voca- 

scriptionum  Grascarum.'     The  text  given  bulo    yivos    nunc    intelHguntur    Apostoli. 

above  is  that  of  his  second  edition,  quoted  Itaque   participium   Xa/3iiv  refertur   aut  ad 

by  Pitra  in  the    '  Spicil.   Solesm.'  torn.   i.  singulos   Apostolos    (quasi    iKaffros  Xa(iav) 

p.  560.     See  above,  p.  142.  aut  ad  unum  ex  iis  quern  in  mente  habuit 

t  By   the    '  holy   offspring '    of  Ichthus  auctor.' 


2l6  APPENDIX. 

Qetnreariioy   vCutoji''   n)y   at)i',  (j)i\e,   duXireo   i//wx»)»' 

"Y^aaiv  aeyc'ioic  TrXovTohorov  crofirjg. 
Sw7->7poc   ^'  ayiwv   ueXirjhea   Xajiftave  f:)pu>am'' 

"FjaHie,  -k'ipe,  hvolu  'IX9YN  ex^y  TraXcifiaic;. 
'I^flOg  i\Qvi  ytip  yaXtXaio),  ^etnrora  triSJrep, 
Su  ei   ^£nrvT]Tt)p,  at  Xira'Cofxe.,  ^wg  to  davorrwy 
'Aflovaro)',   rrwrep,   k,  t.  X* 

Sag  tjcilige  ®cj'ci)led)t  beg  t)inimli[d)en  gtfd)e6,  werfunbetc  mit  er{)abcncm  ^erjen 
cine  iinjlerblid)e  D-UeUe,  unter  ben  ©tevbUd)en,  9ottlid)en  fffiaffevg:  labe  (ober:  begrabe) 
beine  ©eclC/  o  greunb/  in  bem  ewig  flie^enben  ©ewaJTer  reid^umgebenber  S0Sei6t}eitj 
nimm  bie  t)omgfu^e  ©peifc  beg  ^eilanbeS  ber  ^eiligenj  i^  unb  trinf/  ben  gifd)  in  bei= 
ben  v^dnbcn  t)aUenb.  Senn  gifd)  btjt  Su/  o  ^err  unb  @rl5[er/  bem  galildiid)en  gifd)e= 
S3ewii-tl}er  (cber:  sKut)ebnnger)  5  ®id)  f(et}e  id)  m,  ber  S^u  ba§  unfterbUrf)e  £id)t  ber 
25erjlorbenen  meiner  ©eele  gefd)en!t  i)ajl  (ober :  S)id)  flet)e  id)  an/  Cid)t  ber  23er(ior= 
benen/  ber  ®u  meiner  ©eele  geliebt  bift) ! 

Hue  usque  Windischmann,  quern  excipiet  Franzius  : — 

//  D  25u  Srl6fungS5?0le{fter/  35u  Cabfat  meineg  ©emuti)c§/  finb  Sir  9enet)m  SBit- 
jeugen/  fo  fei  aud^  gndbig  ben  93?einen/  unb  gebenfe  ber  ©eel'  un[ereg  ^ectorioS." 


4.     C.  LENORMANT.f 

1  ■)(QvoQ   ovpaviov   deloy   yivoQ   ijropi   o-fyurw 
X   pfjaai   XajSioy   i^u)))v   ajjif^pOToy   kv  fiporioig 

Q   E(Tiri<Tiwv   vCaTwv   T7]i'   <r))i',   0/Xe,   0a\7rfo  xj/vxriv 
Y  caaii'   aei'cioiQ  irXovToSorov   ^ocplrjg 

2  (orijpoQ   c    ayi(i)v  fxeXirjcea   Xafij3ay£  fipwa-iy. 
'  RaOiE  Tv'ivE   Xa/jwj'    l-)(Bvv  i'^^wv  TraXc'ifiaig. 

^X^"  X^P'^'^''  A*   "P«»  XtXaiw,  IsaTTOTa  awrep 
Ev   EvCOL   firfT^jp   (T£   Xtrc(i^o/xat   ((>wg  to  dapoi'Tioi'. 

A(T')(avh£lE    TTc'lTEp    T(O^M     tCE^^apiOrflEPE    dv/JW 

^vy  fitjTpl   yXvKEp7]   <Tvv   T   OLicEioicriv  e^o'ktlv 

'l^QvOQ     Elptjyrj     (TEO    /J.V)l(TEO     IlEKTOplovO. 

O  race  divine  de  1'  'Ixf^vQ  celeste,  regois  avec  un  coeur  plein  de  respect 
la  vie  immortelle  parmi  les  mortels.  Rajeunis  ton  ame,  O  mon  ami,  dans 
les  eaux  divines  par  les  flots  eternels  de  la  Sagesse  qui  donne  la  vraie 
richesse.    Re^ois  I'aliment  delicieux  du  Sauveur  des  saints.    Prends,  mange 

*  In  what  remains  of  the  text,  he  made  no  change  upon  that  of  Franz.    See  No.  2. 
t  Melanges  d'Archcologie,  torn.  iv.      See  above,  p.  135,  note  *. 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION.  21  7 

et  bois,  tu  tiens  'Ix^vq  dans  tes  mains.  'Ix^i^e,  accorde-moi  cette  grace,  je 
la  desire  ardemment,  maitre  et  sauveur,  que  ma  mere  rdpose  en  paix,  je 
t'en  conjure,  lumiere  des  morts.  Aschande'us,  mon  pere,  toi  que  je  che'ris, 
avec  ma  tendre  mere  et  tous  mes  parents  dans  la  paix  d'  'Ix^i^c,  souviens 
toi  de  ton  Pectorius. 


5.     M.  ROSSIGNOL.* 

'l^dvoQ  olvpai^iov  oy]toj/  yevog,  ijTopi  tre/xpu 
Xpfjaai,  Xa/3w[j/  ^uJii^y  afijiporov  kv  ftporeuie; 
Qetnrealwt'   v^c'itup'   t))p   <T))y,   (plXe,   OdXTreo   \pvx>)y 

Ydacriv  aevaoiQ  irXovrohorov   (TO<pir]Cj 

Swrjjpoc  ^'  ayiwv  ixeXirj^ia   Xa/x/3a^£  /5p[w(Ttj']' 

E(T0iE,  ttIj'Le   <tc/3w]i',   /'x^vj/  f'xwi'  TTaXcijiaig. 
'iX^Vj  x^Lp"''''   "■'  ')]pci*  XiXaieo,  limroTa  (7wr[£p], 
E{/0u  ao<T(Tf]rrjp,   ae  Xira^Ofxaij  cpioc  to  davovruiy. 

AaxayCie   [Trarjep,   rw  \xm   K^ya\i^i\rTniyt  Ovfioi, 
^vy  fx\r]Tpt   yXvKeprj  Kal   irdircy  T]o\7](Tiy  k[xol(Tiy,. 

l\_Kyovp.ai  ce,  reov]   fiyijaEO   TLeKTOpiov. 

Race  sainte  du  Poisson  celeste,  aie  un  coeur  penetre  de  respect,  apres 
avoir  regu  dans  ce  monde  mortel  la  vie  immortelle  des  eaux  divines  :  re- 
chauffe ton  ame,  6  ami,  dans  les  eaux  intarissables  de  la  sagesse,  source  de 
richesse,  et  prends  I'aliment  delicieux  que  t'ofifre  le  Sauveur  des  saints. 
Mange,  bois,  saisi  d'un  respect  religieux,  en  tenant  le  Poissdn  dans  tes 
mains. 

Poisson,  je  t'ai  pris  dans  mes  mains ;  hate-toi,  maitre  Sauveur,  sois- 
moi  promptement  secourable  ;  je  t'en  supplie,  toi,  la  lumiere  des  morts. 
Aschandius,  mon  pere,  objet  cher  a  mon  cceur,  je  t'en  prie,  souviens-toi, 
avec  ma  douce  mere  et  tous  les  miens,  de  ton  Pectorius. 


6.     PADRE  GARRUCCI.f 

'IxSi'Oc   o[ypayiov  dejioy   yeyog   i'jropi   asfiyu 
\piia\^ai]   Xafl(o\^y   7rr}y))jy'   a.fxj3poTOy  Iv  flporeoiQ 


*  In  the  '  Revue  Archeologique,'  Mai,  rently  been  ^vritten  before  he  became  ac- 

1856,  p.  65.     To  this  and  the  subsequent  quainted  with  M.  Rossignol's. 

letter  to  Garrucci  (ibid.  p.  491),   Kirchoff  f  In   his    'Melanges   d'Epigraphie   an- 

refers  in  his  last  words,  and  speaks  of  M.  cienne.'     Paris,    1856,  1857.     His  treatise 

Rossignol  as  '  interpretum  novissimus  idem  was    published  some  months  after  that  of 

et  optimus. '     His  own  comment  had  appa-  M.  Rossignoi. 


2  I  8  APPENDIX. 

{Q)eaTr£cri(i)v  v^6.[tu)]p'  ti}v  (Tt)r,  (plXe,  daXire  ^^X'/L*'] 

"XSaaiv  aevaoie  ttXovto^otov  ^oflrjg. 

^(OTfjpog   2'  ayiijjv  yueXiTjSea   Xafxfiat^e   [/Bpwcrij'J 

"E(T0i£  7r[£]tva'w»'   tj((0)i/j'  e'xwi'  TraXdfxaie. 
'Ix(0)i',  X^'pM   «P«P«j   XtXa/[o/iai],   ^Eo-irora  Swr^[jo]. 

E5  f'/Xw,   M;7r/;p,  (re  Xira'4o/x[ai],  ^wg  ro  dapoyrioy. 
'Ao-X"''^'^   [7ra]rep  rw/xw   K:£[xo]pt(Tyu£V£   OvfiM, 

2i)v  ^[Tjrpt  XP^'^^^   ^^^  a^eX(pei\o7(7iy  efxolaiv, 
'l[^dvoQ  Iv  ^f.iirv(o\  fxv\u)\£o  HeKropiov. 

Piscis  cselestis  divinum  genus,  vitam  honestam  vive  tinctum  cum  sis 
fonte  non  mortal!  inter  homines,  aquarum  a  Deo  fluentium.  Tuam  idcirco, 
dilecte,  fove  mentem  aquis  perennibus  Sapientiae  ditantis,  et  Salvatoris 
fidelium  suavem  accipe  cibum,  manduca  esurienter  piscem,  quern  manu 
tenes.  O  piscis,  ecce  manus  paratas,  teneani  te,  Domine  Salvator.  Ut 
devota  mente  accipiam.  Mater,  oro  te,  lucem  mortuorum.  Pater  mi, 
Ascandi,  meo  animo  carissime,  cum  optima  matre,  cum  fratribus  meis,  in 
coena  piscis  memineris  Pectorii. 


7.     FRED.  DUBNER. 

^lyBvoQ  ovpaviov  Oe'iov  yevog  ?;ropi   erefxi'M 

XpijOTE'   Aafiijy  Trrjytjy   cifjif^poToy   Iv  (iporioiQ, 

QeaTreaicju   v^drwy,   Tr)r   irrjy,   (piXe,   daXTreo   ^pv^W 
"Yhaaiy  aeyaoiQ  ttXovtoSotov   aocpirjg. 

^WTTJpog   ^'  ayiwy   ^eXirjBea   Xd^fiayE  (ipwtnv. 
"E(r0i£,  TT~iy   vyiay,  'IX0YN   e'xwj^  TraXa/xaig. 

^lyQvi   (^p£tw   yap)    TaXiXaiw^   EetrTrora   awTEp, 

2u0t  aocrtrriTtip,   (re   Xira^OfiE,  (f>u>g   to   Oayoyrwy. 

'AtTKay^alE  Trdrep,  rthfx^   KE-^^apirrjiiyE  Ov/xm, 

[Eu]   (tvv  fJiWP'-  fiioy  hidyoig,   ical  roimv  kfxdl(ny, 

'I-)^6vy   ^'  elffopoujy  fj.yt](7E0   TlEKTOplov. 

Piscis  coelestis  [CAristi]  divina  proles  [Apostoli  et  Fatres]  pectore  au- 
gusto  vaticinium  edidit :  '  Qui  acceperis  immortalem  inter  mortales  fontem 
divinorum  laticum,  tuam,  amice,  animam  fove  perennibus  aquis  ditantis 
sapientise ;  et  Salvatoris  pie  viventium  dulcem  cape  cibum  :  ede,  bibe  sani- 
tatem,  piscem  tenens  manibus.' 

Jam  pisci  Galilaeo  \^Christia?io\  (nam  necessitas  urget),  Domine  Salvator, 
propere  adveni  auxilium  ferens,  tibi  supplico,    qui   es   lux   defunctorum. 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION. 


219 


Aschandsee  pater,  meo  carissime  animo,  feliciter  vitam  agas  cum  matre  et 
omnibus  meis,  Piscem  autem  aspiciens  memento  Pectorii. 

IXeVZ    €IC    AEI. 

JESUS  CHRISTUS  HERI  ET  HODIE,  IPSE  ET  IN  S^CULA. 


8.     KIRCHOFF.* 

'I"X"[^]'^oc'  o[ypaviov  6ty]iov  yifog,   ijropi  o-[f^]»/w 

XpJjce'   \[aj/3w[j/  Trriyrfjv   apfipoTov  kv  ftpoTioL\Q\ 
BE(TTr\e\(Ti(j)v  vla\T(i)\v  tijv   (Tr]y,  (plXe,  0[aJ\7r[E]o   i^vx[»)i'l 

{!B[a](Ttv   aevdoig  TrXovro^orov   (To<pir]Q' 
o-[w7-^Jpoe   [^']   ay    lu}v  ;u[e]\i[>;]^[£aj   Xdfxflav\jE.  ftpijaiv], 

i[(T\di£  7rtv[awjj/  l')^vv   [eJx*'"'  7r[aXo^ate]. 
"I\[af^]i,   <-X^-["'   '^^   y]"?   [r]a\t\a/w,   SemroTa,   ^^[d'/p], 
ei)[o]ow    [(?j]rJ7p*    ere   Xi-di^Ofie,   0w[e]   to  dat'oyTWif. 
['A<7]xa[»']3t[£  Trajrep,  nhfia   K\^E-)(^a\pi(rfi[e^v£   Qvfxw, 
(Tvv  n\r]Tp\  yXvKEprj  ical  dh£X(pEi\o~t(Tii'  [ej^uoTo-iv 

l\^dvog  iv  ^e/ttj/w]  yLi»'?/(T[£]o  IltKTopiov. 


9.     CARDINAL  PITRA.t 
'IXGYOS  vvpaviov  deJof  yivoQ,   ijropi  trEfivcj 

XpVjITE^     \a/3wj/     ^(i))]U     UfJLJjpOTOV    EV    ftpOTEOLQ 


*  The  Editor  of  the  last  volume  of  the  the  r  which  lie  introduces  before  aXiXa'iM 

'Corpus  Inscriptionum  Grtecarum.'     (See  he  writes  :  'Dilucide  apparet  P,  non  r,  ut 

No.  9890.)     He  had  before  him  a  photo-  visum    ei   qui  Secchio   transmisit   apogi'a- 

graph    (taken   from  a  cast)   published  by  phum.     At  vero  orbiculo  litterse  ejus  semi- 

Garrucci.  circulari   subjecta   conspecta  littera   minu- 

Vs.    I.     '  Puncta,   quibus  septa  apparet  tissima,  qua;  videntur  vestigia  esse  litters 

littera  X  in  ectypo,  neglecta  sunt  ab  editor-  r  mimit^e  in  majuscularum  intervallo  proe- 

ibus.     Significatur  iis  vox  lx,^vo;  anagram-  script^.' 
matis  loco  esse.'  Vs.   11.    '  Extremo   ver.su    flCKTO" 

Vs.  2.   He  intei-prets  xi^'^^  as  =  xf^'^'^h  n  \/r\       -a  .   •     1     •  1        .  r.. 

an  aorist  imperative.  ^^^^  ^^"^"^  ^^^  i"  ^'-^P^^^'   ^^  l'"^'-^ 

Vs.  5.  'Non  S-  iy/^v  legendum,  ut  visum  ^"=^1^^  '^'"'^''^  '^^   comparati,   ut  non  cor- 

plerisque,  sed  V  Hy'  li..,  id  quod  intellexit  ™^^  ^''^^^^'''  ^^'^P""''  '"J^^"^'  ^^'^  ^^  ^P^° 

Wordsworthius  1.  1.'  quadratario  deleta  consulto. 

Vs.  6.    '  Haud   dubie   vidit   Garraccius,  For  Kirchoff's  opinion  as  to  the  date  of 

qui  legit  *;va«v,  i.  e.   -7tw«.o,v:  the  Inscription,  see  above,  p.  134,  n.  *. 

Vs.  7.   He  considers  the  second  letter  of  f  This  is  his  final  recension,  as  given  in 

this  line  to  be  A  not  X.      In  reference  to  the  '  Spicil.''Solesm.'  i.  p.  557. 


2  20  APPENDIX. 

QEfTTTEcriwv  v^ariov'  r})v   (T))v,  (piXe,  0aXxEO   \pv')(})v, 

"YBaariy  ciEvaoiq  irXovToZoTOv   (TO<pir]g. 
Sw7->7poc  ^'   Ayioji'  fieXirihia   Xdfxfiave  /3pw(Tn'* 

"E<T0ie,   TTtv'  ciSrjp  'IX0YN   t'x'^v  TraXd/JLCUQ. 

'IX0YI  yEvoiT^  apa'   AiXaiu),   Aecnrora   Ewrtp, 

^vdi  jjiOL  //yjjrjyp,   <re   Xird^o/iE,   (pCJg  to  dapovrwv  !  ■ 

Suv  firfTpL   yXvKEprj,   arvv  r'  oIkeioIctlv  ifxoXaiy, 
'I')(dvoQ  elprjvr],  fxyijiTEO  UeKTopiov. 

'  Piscis  coelestis  divinum  genus,  integerrimi  pectoris 
Esto,  assumta  vita  immortali,  inter  mortales, 
Sacratis  in  lymphis  :  tuani,  amice,  confove  animam 
Aquis  perennibus  munificae  sapientiae  ; 
Salvatorisque  Sanctorum  suavem  accipe  cibum  : 
Manduca,  bibe  afifatim,  Piscem  in  manibus  habens.' 

Ad  Piscem  mea  efifundatur  oratio  :  '  Te  enixe  precor, 

Domine  Salvator. 
Sis  mihi  dux  propitius,  te  quseso,  o  lux  mortuorum  ! 
Aschandee  pater,  meo  carissime  animo, 
Tu  cum  matre  dulcissima  simul  ac  familiaribus  meis, 
Cum  pace  Piscis,  memento  Pectorii. 


lo.     THE  BISHOP  OF  LINCOLN. 

Joint's  coronet  opus.  I  cannot  better  conclude  than  with  the  Letter 
which  I  have  just  received  from  Dr.  Christopher  Wordsworth,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  who  has  kindly  given  me  permission  to  make  it  public : — 

Riseholme,  Lmcoln, 
April  1 8,   1870. 
Dear  Mr,  Marriott, 

I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  your  photographic  facsimile 
of  the  very  interesting  ancient  Christian  Inscription  at  Autun. 

You  ase  quite  right  in  thinking,  that,  after  the  sight  of  your  accurate 
copy  of  it,  there  are  several  particulars  in  which  I  should  wish  to  modify 
the  remarks  that  I  made  on  this  Inscription,  at  the  request  of  Cardinal 
Pitra,  twenty-five  years  ago,  before  anything  had  been  written  upon  it  by 
others,  as  far  as  I  was  aware. 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION.  22  1 

The  Inscription,  as  you  well  know,  is  a  sepulchral  one,  in  memory  of  a 
certain  Pectorius,  a  son  of  Aschandeius.  It  seems  to  have  been  placed 
near  the  baptistery  of  a  church,  and  to  have  been  designed  to  be  an  in- 
vitation first  to  receive  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  and  to  use  it  aright ;  and 
next  to  partake,  with  earnest  desire  and  devout  reverence,  of  the  Holy 
Communion. 

The  connexion  of  this  invitation  with  the  sepulchral  character  of  the 
Inscription  is  probably  to  be  traced  to  the  belief  of  the  Christian  Church, 
that  these  two  Sacraments  are  the  appointed  means  for  communicating  to 
the  faithful  the  benefits  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and  are 
pledges  and  earnests  to  them  of  a  blessed  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and 
of  a  glorious  immortality,  by  virtue  of  their  mystical  union  with  Christ, 
Who  is  'the  Resurrection  and  Life.' 

I  now  venture  to  submit  to  you  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  reading 
and  meaning  of  the  Inscription:  — 

I')(dvog  ovpaviov  dt'rjrov   yivog,   ijropi   crefivui 

Xpyjffe   Xaf3wv  irrfyijv   a^fiporov  Iv  (iporioiq 
Qea-KEcriwv   vbaTWv'  t)}v   <t))v,   (plXe,  BaXirto   \l/v)(^i)y 

Ydacrip   liEvaoiQ  irXovroZoTOv   (ro<piT]g. 
^wriipOQ   2'  riy' iwj/  fXEXitj^ia   Xa^fiavE   [ipwaiv' 
'  E(T0ie,  TrJye,  reaiy   l-)(dvv  ex**"'  TraXctyuatj'. 

The  best  comment  on  the  Inscription  is  to  be  seen  in  the  figures  en- 
graved on  your  margin  (which  were  not  inserted  in  Cardinal  Pitra's  copy), 
namely,  that  of  the  priest  holding  the  chalice  (referred  to  in  the  Greek 
word  TTij'e  in  the  Inscription),  and  that  of  the  man  swimming  by  the  aid  of 
the  fish  (a  symbol  of  the  support  given  to  the  Christian  carried  safely 
through  the  deep  waters  of  death  by  communion  with  Christ) ;  and  by  the 
fish  in  the  basket,  commemorative  of  our  Lord's  miraculous  feeding  of  the 
multitude,  when  the  fragments  of  the  fishes  were  taken  up  in  the  Apostolic 
baskets  (Matt.  xiv.  203  Mark,  vi.  43  ;  Luke,  ix.  17;  John,  vi.  13)  :  all  of 
which  representations  have  their  groundwork  in  the  Name  of  Christ,  the 
Divine  IX6Y2,  /.  e.  IritrovQ,  Xpiarog,  Qeov  Yioe,  ^wrrip  (see  Optatus,  iii.  c.  2  ; 
Bishop  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art.  xi.  note  p.  105),  and  declare  that  all 
the  spiritual  life  of  all  Christians,  who  were  called  from  Him  Ix'^veg,  and 
who  are  born  anew  in  the  water  of  Baptism,  is  derived  from  the  Divine 
'IX^vc,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ;  according 
to  the  saying  of  Tertullian,  '  Nos  pisciculi,  secundum  '\yQvv  nostrum,  Jesum 
Christum,  in  aqua  nascimur.'    ('  De  Baptismo,'  c.  i.) 


2  22  APPENDIX. 

The  Inscription,  as  I  would  propose  to  read  it,  may  be  translated  as 
follows  :  — 

'  O  thou  mortal  offspring  of  the  heavenly  Fish  (Christ),  use,  with  a 
reverent  heart,  when  thou  hast  received  the  immortal  fountain  of  divine 
waters  among  mortals.'  That  is  to  say,  'When  thou  hast  received  bap- 
tismal grace,  use  that  grace  well,  with  a  reverent  heart.  Thy  daily  life  is 
among  mortals,  therefore  be  on  thy  guard  :  but  thou  hast  an  immortal  gift 
of  grace  within  thee,  which  thou  didst  receive  in  thy  baptism ;  use  it, 
therefore,  with  a  heart  full  of  reverence  for  the  gift  and  for  the  Giver." 

This  is  explained  further  by  what  follows  :  — '  O  my  friend '  (who  hast 
been  baptized),  '  cherish  thy  soul  with  the  ever-flowing  waters  of  wealth- 
giving  wisdom.'  Thou  hast  been  baptized  once  for  all ;  but  there  are  ever- 
flowing  waters  of  wisdom  which  will  give  thee  eternal  wealth  :  these  are 
the  living  waters  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  flowing  to  thee  in  the  other  means  of 
grace,  especially  in  the  Word  of  God,  in  Prayer,  and  in  Holy  Communion. 
Remember,  now  that  thou  hast  been  baptized,  ever  to  refresh  thy  soul  with 
these  perennial  streams  of  divine  wisdom.  Neglect  not  the  grace  that  is  in 
thee,  but  cherish  it  continually ;  and  more  grace  will  be  given  thee. 

Observe  now  what  follows  :  — '  Come  and  receive  the  food,  sweet  as 
honey,  of  thy  Saviour '  (in  the  Holy  Eucharist).  '  Eat,  drink,  holding  the 
Fish  '  (/.  e.  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ)  '  in  thy  hands.' 

In  the  second  line  of  the  Inscription  we  have  x^nat  for  the  imperative 
aorist  xpv^^ai,  just  as  we  have  in  line  8,  Xira^ofie  for  Xira'Coixai.  This  con- 
fusion is  to  be  explained  from  the  similarity  of  the  sounds  of  ai  and  e  (a 
similarity  as  old,  at  least,  as  the  times  of  Callimachus,  who  makes  e^fi  to 
echo  to  vaixL  (Epigr.  xxx.),  and  continued  to  this  day  in  Greece ;  and  also 
from  metrical  convenience,  the  short  t  being  substituted  for  the  long 
syllable  ai. 

Now  follows  the  answer  to  the  above  invitation. 

The  Inscription  is  here  in  a  fragmentary  condition,  and  I  venture  with 
diffidence  to  suggest  a  conjectural  reading  of  it ;  following,  as  nearly  as 
I  am  able,  the  traces  of  the  letters  :  — 

'I^0i5i   XOApE '   (Tov   dpa   XiXaiu),   AecnrOTa   ^aJrep, 
Su0'  e[j.oi   iiyr]rt]p,   <re  XiTaCo^e-,  (ftwQ  to  BafoyTwy' 

i.  e.  ' Hail  to  the  Fish '  (xa'P«  being  used,  as  in  the  angelic  salutation,  Luke, 
i.  28) ;  'I  earnestly  long  for  Thee,  O  Master  and  Saviour.'  (AtXat'w  is 
used  for  XiXaiofiai,  followed  by  a  genitive,  Hom.  Od.  i.  315,  and  passim^ 
The    Holy  Eucharist  was    called    '  Desiderata,'    or    '  longed  for,'  by  the 


THE  AUTUN  INSCRIPTION.  223 

ancient  Christians.  (See  Casaubon,  '  Exerc.  Baronian.'  xvi.  No.  xlv. 
pp.  500-2.) 

'  Haste  to  me  as  my  leader,  I  pray  Thee '  {Xira'Co^e  for  Xira^onai,  as 
XPV(^£  for  ■xp^]<Tai,  in  v.  2),  'O  Thou  Hght  of  the  dead.'  Here,  we  may 
observe,  is  a  testimony  to  the  primitive  usage  of  the  Church  addressing 
prayers  and  hymns  to  Christ  as  God,  '  Christo  quasi  Deo,'  as  Phny  relates 
(x.  97) ;  and  as  is  represented  in  the  interesting  ancient  Graffito  recently 
discovered  at  Rome,  and  described  by  me  in  'Tour  in  Italy,' ii.  143-8. 
Cfr.  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  28. 

The  rest  of  the  Inscription  consists  of  words  supposed  to  be  spoken  by 
the  son,  Pectorius,  to  his  surviving  father  and  friends  : — 

^vy  fxrjrpi   yXvKeprj   »cai   (ide\(t>£iol(Tif   £fj.ol(ny, 

'I^dilV    l^U)V    VIOV    fXP7](T£0     Tl£KTOplOV' 

i.  e.  '  O  my  father  Aschandeius,  dear  to  my  soul,  with  my  dear  mother  and 
my  brethren,  when  thou  seest  the  Fish'  (engraved  on  the  margin  of  this 
epitaph),  '  remember  thy  son  Pectorius.' 

Believe  me  to  be, 

My  dear  Marriott, 

Yours  sincerely, 

C.  Lincoln. 

The  Rev.  Wharton  B.  Marriott. 


LONDON 

Strangewavs  and  Walden,  Printers,  Castle  St.  Leicester  Sq. 


By    the    Rev.    W.    B.    MARRIOTT. 


VESTIARIVM    CHRISTIANVM  : 

The  Origin  and  gradiial  Development  of  the  Dress  of  Holy  Ministry  in  the  Church, 

as  evidenced  by  Monuments,  both  of  Literature  and  of  Art, 

from  the  Apostolic  Age  to  the  Present  Time. 

Royal  8vo.  pp.  340,  with  Seventy  Illustrations.     Price  38^-. 

Copious  Extracts  (with  Notes  and  Translations)  are  given  from  the  following 
among  other  Writers: — Josephus,  Philo  Judseus,  and  Hegesippus ;  Eusebius 
and  Epiphanius;  St.  Jerome,  St.  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  §t  Celestme,  St.  Isidore 
of  Pelusium,  St.  Gregory  the  Great;  St.  Isidore  of  SeviTTe,  Veiierable  Bede, 
St.  Boniface jRabanus  Maurus,,Amalarius^ Walafrid  Strabo,  the  Pseudo-Alcuin, 
StT7Iv0j^Hugd~3e^ST.  "Victor,  Honorius  of  Aiifunj  Innocent  111./  DurandifsT' 
Patriarch  Sj'meou  of  Thessalonica.  '  "   " 

The  Illustrations,  chiefly  Photographs  and  Photolithographs,  are  from  Syriac, 
Greek,  Latin,  and  English  Manuscripts,  from  the  sixth  to  the  fifteenth  centurj^; 
from  Frescoes  and  Mosaic  Pictures  in  the  Roman  Catacombs,  or  in  early  Churches 
at  Thessalonica,  Rome,  Ravenna,  and  Trebizond  \  from  Consular  and  Ecclesi- 
astical Diptychs  ;  and  from  Ecclesiastical  Monuments  preserved  at  Moscow  and 
St.  Petersburg.     Among  these  are  — 

1.  Plates  I.  to  IX.  —  Monuments  illustrative  of  the  ordinary  Greek  and 
Roman  Costume  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  and  of  Sacerdotal  Dress  and  Insignia, 
Greek,  Roman,  and  Jewish. 

2.  A  Diptych  of  St.  Paul  (not  later  than  circ.  400  a.d.)  representing  the 
Miracles  at  Melita,  and  St.  Paul  himself  seated  in  an  Apostolic  Throne,  and 
giving  Benediction  to  a  Bishop. 

3.  Plates  X.  to  XVII.  —  From  the  Roman  Catacombs — The  Holy  Family, 
the  Adoration  of  the  Magi ;  Our  Lord  as  the  Giver  of  the  Divine  Word,  and 
as  '  The  Good  Shepherd ;'  Our  Lord  with  Six  Apostles,  and  with  the  Twelve  ; 
the  Celebration  of  a  Passover;  the  Ordination  of  a  Deacon. 

4  Plates  XVIII.  to  XXI. — From  the  Church  of  St.  George  at  Thessalonica 
— Coloured  Drawings  (from  Mosaics  of  the  fourth  century)  representing  Philip, 
Bishop  of  Heraclea,  the  Presbyter  Romanus,  SS.  Cosmas  and  Damianus, 
St.  Eucarpion,  and  others,  Martyrs  in  the  Diocletian  Persecution. 

5.  From  a  Syriac  MS.  written  a.d.  586 — Our  Lord  administering  the  Bread 
and  the  Cup  to  Eleven  Apostles  ;  the  Crucifixion  and  the  Ascension  ;  Euse- 
bius of  C^sarea  and  Ammonius. 

6.  Plates  XXXII.  &  XXXIIL— The  Mosaics  of  the  Triclinium  Lateranum. 

7.  Plates  XXX.  and  XXXI.  —  Frescoes  representing  St.  Xvstvs  of  Rome 
and  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Cornelivs  of  Rome,  and  another  contemporary  Bishop. 

8.  Plates  XXXIV.  to  XXXVL— A  series  of  Illustrations  from  the  '  Liber 
Pontificalis '  of  Bishop  Landulfus  (MS.  of  the  ninth  century  at  Rome).  These 
represent  the  Costume  and  Insignia,  and  the  Modes  of  Ordination,  regarded 
as  proper  to  Priests,  Deacons,  Subdeacons,  Exorcists,  and  the  other  Minor 
Orders,  at  the  period  in  question 


2  WORKS  BY  THE  REV.    IV.  B.  MARRIOTT. 

9.  Plate  XXXVII. — A  Bishop  administering  the  Chrism  to  a  newly  bap- 
tized Infant,  from  a  MS.  of  the  ninth  century  at  Rome. 

10.  Plates  XL.  and  XLIII.  —  Frescoes  from  the  hypogene  Church  of 
St.  Clement,  lately  discovered. 

11.  Plates  XXXVIII.  to  XLVII.  —  Historical  Monuments  of  the  Eastern 
and  the  Western  Church,  from  the  ninth  to  the  fourteenth  century — among 
them  the  Session  of  the  Seventh  General  Council  (Greek  reckoning),  from 
the  Menologium  of  the  Emperor  Basil  in  the  Vatican  Library. 

12.  Plates  XLVIII.  and  XLIX. — The  Consecration  of  Eadulf,  Archbishop 
of  Lichfield  (see  Hook's  '  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,'  vol.  i. 
pp.  243  sqq.) ;  and  the  Investiture  of  Willegoda,  first  Abbot  of  St.  Alban's. 
From  a  MS.  of  the  thirteenth  century. 

13.  Plate  XLIV. — St.  Dunstan,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  St.  Gre- 
gory the  Great,  from  a  MS.  of  the  eleventh  century. 

14.  Plate  L.  —  Erie  Richard  of  Warwick,  and  Robert  Halain,  Bishop  of 
Salisbury,  Ambassadors  from  Henry  V.  of  England,  are  received  by  the  Pope 
and  the  Emperor  at  the  Council  of  Constance. 

15.  Plate  LI.  —  How  Kyng  Henry  VI.,  beyng  in  his  tender  age,  was 
crowned  Kyng  of  Englond  at  Westminstre  witli  great  Solempnytie.  (This 
Plate,  and  that  last  described,  are  from  a  MS.  of  the  fifteenth  century,  by  the 
antiquary,  John  Rous.) 

1 6.  Plates  LII.  to  LV.  —  Four  Bassi-Relievi,  executed  by  order  of  Euge- 
nius  IV.,  illustrative  of  the  principal  Events  of  the  Council  of  Florence. 

Plates  LVI.  to  LX.  —  Illustrations  of  Ecclesiastical  Costume  in  the  Greek 
Church. 

Many  of  the  above  have  been  photographed,  by  gracious  permission,  from  a  Collection  of  colojired 
Drawings,  in  which  the  principal  objects  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiquity  at  Rome  are  carefully  repro- 
duced, as  they  existed  nearly  200  years  ago.  The  Collection  7aas  originally  made  for  Cardinal 
Albano  {aftetioards  Clement  XI.).  It  was  purchased  at  Rome,  for  King  George  the  Third,  and 
is  now  the  property  of  Her  Majesty  the  Queen. 


Opinions  of  the  Press. 

'  A  book  which  has  reference  to  Art,  ReHgious  Customs,  and  Civilisation  in  all  its  Christian 
aspects,  as  well  as  to  certain  fiercely  contested  questions  of  the  hour  ....  The  testimonies  of 
the  pictures  in  the  Roman  Catacombs,  and  those  of  the  mosaics  in  the  early  churches  of  Rome, 
Ravenna,  and  Constantinople,  are  successively  and  successfully  invoked  to  prove  the  points  which 
we  have  thus  set  forth  in  brief  from  this  book.  The  second  and  third  periods  of  our  author's 
division  are  examined  and  illustrated  with  perspicuity,  care,  and  with  learning  equal  to  those 
which  have  been  bestowed  upon  the  first  in  order.  The  progress  of  changes,  which  are  more 
important  in  their  significance  than  in  themselves,  is  chronicled  with  abundant  knowledge,  and 
to  a  result  which  will  amply  repay  the  student,  even  if  he  does  not  accept  Mr.  Marriott's  con- 
clusions.'— AthencEum,  July  II,  1868. 

'  We  have  dwelt  at  so  much  length  on  the  points  in  which  we  differ  from  Mr.  Marriott,  that 
we  wish  again  to  bear  testimony  to  the  excellence,  completeness,  and  learning  of  the  work  as  a 
whole  .  .  .  Mr.  Marriott's  theories,  right  or  wrong,  never  waip  his  statement  of  the  evidence  ; 
and  we  know  of  no  other  work  whatever  which  gives  at  length  all  the  principal  passages  of 
ancient  writers  relating  to  vestments,  Levitical  and  Christian,  not  barely  transcribed,  but  care- 
fully translated  and  explained.' —  Contemporary  Review,  July,  1868. 

'  A  really  scientific  treatise  on  a  perplexed  subject  ....  full  of  deep  learning,  sound  judg- 
ment, and  wise  criticism,  rendered  especially  valuable  by  the  ecclesiastical  controversies  of  our 
day.' — -London  Revicnv,  May  16. 

'  Scholarlike,  critical,  and  painstaking  ....  The  illustrations  are  of  great  interest  and 
Talue.' — The  Churchman,  April  23. 

'  We  should  omit  a  very  pleasant  duty  if  we  did  not,  in  closing  our  remarks,  testify  to  the 
general  care,  taste,  learning,  judgment,  and  ability,  with  which  this  book  has  been  prepared.' — 
The  Church  News,  May  27. 


IVOUKS  BY  THE  REV.    IV.  B.  MARRIOTT. 


'  A  most  learned  antiquarian  investigation  ....  It  would  be  in  vain  to  search  elsewhere 
for  such  a  repertory  of  original  authorities  on  the  subject.' —  GentlemaiCs  Magazine. 

'  The  volume  before  us  is  of  intense  interest,  both  Archaeological  and  Dogmatic' —  Clerical 
yourual. 

'  A  store  of  curious  learning  about  a  very  intricate  subject,  and  also  what  is  in  some  respects 
more  valuable  than  even  the  documentary  matter,  a  copious  Appendix  of  Plates,  many  of  them 
of  great  artistic  value,  and  all  of  exceeding  archreological  interest  .  .  .  Mr.  Marriott's  valuable 
and  entertaining  volume  will,  henceforth,  be  simply  indispensable  to  every  one  who  attempts  to 
discuss  the  subject  which  he  has  treated.' —  T/ie  Church  Times,  Sept.  26. 

'  Mr.  Marriott  has  carefully  and  wisely  avoided  all  reference  to  the  passing  controversies  of 
these  days,  and  his  aim  has  been  simply  to  collect  an  infinitely  wide  range  of  facts  which  bear 
upon  his  main  subject,  and  to  leave  them  to  tell  their  impartial  stoiy  to  the  reader,  throughout 
eveiy  chapter  of  his  work.  The  extreme  skill  and  care  with  which  he  has  accomplished  his 
difficult  task  are  eminently  notable,  when  it  is  remembered  over  what  a  wide  extent  his  inquiry 
stretches  .  .  .  To  make  his  inquiry  complete  in  all  respects,  he  adds  to  these  careful  discussions 
a  series  of  engravings  and  photographs  taken  from  ancient  MSS.,  frescoes,  paintings,  and 
carvings,  of  the  rarest  and  most  curious  kinds.  These  alone,  in  fact,  form  a  collection  of  sin- 
gular interest  to  the  antiquary  and  the  student  of  Church  history  and  Church  ornament.' — 
The  Standard. 

'  A  work  of  great  learning,  the  result  of  independent  research  .  .  .  Mr.  Marriott  throughout 
deals  with  his  subject  in  a  very  masterly  way.  His  own  opinions  are  in  favour  of  a  simple 
ritual,  but  he  is  studiously  just  .  .  .  His  volume  is  adorned  with  a  number  of  illustrations,  most 
interesting  and  admirably  executed.' — -The  Spectator. 


THE  VESTMENTS  OF  THE  CHURCH  : 

AN  ILLUSTRATED  LECTURE. 
Fifty-two  pages,  with  Thirteen  Plates  and  Four  Woodcuts.     Price  5^-. 


%  Carrcspoitbcitce 

Between  the  Rev.  W.  B.  MARRIOTT,  M.A.,  Select  Preacher,  &c. 

AND 

The  Rev.  T.  T.  CARTER,  M.A.,  Rector  of  Clewer, 
ON     THE     DOCTRINE     OF    THE     HOLY     EUCHARIST, 

AS   RECENTLY  SET   FORTH   BY 

DR.  PUSEY,  ARCHDEACON  DENISON,   THE  REV.  T.  T.   CARTER, 

AND    OTHERS. 

Parts  I.  and  II.     Price  2s.  each. 

'  Small  in  size,  but  of  sterling  value,  and  full  of  interest  for  the  thoughtful  student  of  theology. 
It  is  one  of  those  delicious  morsels  of  criticism  that  one  meets  with  now  and  then.  We  can  pay 
it  no  higher  compliment,  as  to  its  literary  value,  than  by  saying  that  we  shall  place  it  on  our 
shelves  next  to  Professor  Newman's  reply  to  Matthew  Arnold  on  Homeric  Translation.  Yet  its 
literary  value  is  its  smallest  charm  ....  No  mere  review  can  do  justice  to  it.' — Church  Rcz-ieio 
(on  Part  I.),  October  3,  1868. 

'  The  five  Letters  which  remain  to  be  noticed  ...  are  more  than  equal  in  interest  to  their 
predecessors  ;  whilst  in  the  Appendices  .  .  .  many  supplementary  matters  of  high  and  general 
import  are  discussed,  and  beyond  every  other  the  method  to  be  used  in  the  intei-pretation  of 
Holy  Scripture  .  .  .  This  correspondence  is  as  beguiling  in  its  manner  as  it  is  valuable  for  its 
matter.'— C//;/;r//  Reviezu  (on  Part  II.),  March  27,  1869. 

'  A  calm,  earnest,  persistent  inquiry  after  truth.' —  The  Rock. 


WORKS  BY  THE  REV.    W.  B.  MARRIOTT. 


EIRENICA: 

THE  WHOLESOME  WORDS  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  CONCERNING 
QUESTIONS  NOW  DISPUTED  IN  THE  CHURCH. 

Part  I. — The  Testimony  of  Inspired  Writers  to  the  Nature  of  Divine  Inspiration, 
Part  II. — Regeneration — Renewal  and  Renewing  Growth — Conversion. 

With  Appendices  illustrative  of  the  Primitive  Usage  of  these  Terms, 
and  of  Questions  of  Greek  Criticism. 

In  One  Vol.  8vo.  cloth.     Price  4^.  dd. 

'  Mr.  Wharton  Marriott's  treatise  stands  so  far  in  contrast  to  Dr.  Pusey's  "Eirenicon,"  that, 
with  the  same  charitable  intention  of  reconciling  apparent  differences  in  the  use  of  theological 
definitions,  it  undertakes  rather  to  explain  so-called  Evangelical,  as  the  latter  Roman  Catholic, 
terms,  consistently  with  Scriptural  and  Anglican  Church  teaching.  The  present  part  (Part  11.) 
deals  with  Regeneration,  Renewal  and  Renewing  Growth,  and  Conversion- — terms,  we  ne^d 
hardly  say,  as  rife  as  any  that  could  be  selected,  of  discord  between  opposing  schools.  There  is 
an  immense  amount  of  sound  and  sober  instruction  on  these  subjects  compressed  into  the  compass 
of  220  pages,  with  a  most  scholarlike  arrangement  of  indices,  marginal  references,  and  appen- 
dices, "illustrative  of  the  primitive  usages  of  these  terms,  and  of  cpiestions  of  Greek  criticism." 
We  strongly  recommend  the  work  to  clergymen  and  theological  students  of  all  schools,  and  to 
educated  laymen  desirous  of  finding  their  way  among  the  perplexing  labyrinths  of  discordant 
schools.' — John  Bull. 

'  A  careful  and  elaborate  examination  of  the  actual  Scriptural  usage  of  all  the  terms  involved.' 
—  Guardian. 

'  Mr.  Marriott  is  a  student  and  a  scholar,  and  in  writing  wholesome  words  like  these  he  is 
indeed  in  his  proper  place.  This  makes  us  the  more  wish  that  he  would  leave  alone  questions 
of  Church  ornaments  and  ritual.  For  students,  whether  amateur  or  professional,  if  we  may  so 
speak,  the  present  treatise  is  invaluable.  Mr.  Marriott  goes  to  the  bottom  of  his  subject,  and 
brings  the  most  careful  philology  to  bear  upon  it.  We  sincerely  hope  that  he  will  be  encouraged 
to  go  on  with  his  series  ;  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  more  valuable  help  to  a  discriminating  exa- 
mination of  the  language  of  Scripture  and  the  early  Fathers.  The  notes  teem  with  learning  and 
information.' —  Church  Times. 


AND  THE  FOLLOWING  EDUCATIONAL  WORKS:— 

THE    ADELPHI     OF    TERENCE, 

WITH  ENGLISH  NOTES  ; 

And  an  Introduction  on  the  Terentian  Metres,  as  Illustrating  the  Connexion  of  the 
Latin,  Italian,  Spanish,  and  French  Languages. 

Small  8vo.  price  y.  6d. 
'  Would  be  worth  getting  for  the  Introduction  alone.' — Saturday  Hevieiv. 

SELECTIONS    FROM    OVID'S  METAMORPHOSES, 

WITH  ENGLISH  NOTES.  _^^ 

Second  Edition,  revised  and  corrected.     Price  4^.  6d. 
'  Calculated  to  create  an  enthusiasm  for  the  Grammar  and  the  Lexicon.' — Guardian. 

I- I 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


RECDLS-m*-. 


LP 

JliLl61985 

i!RT5  ID  trm 
"  JAN    71 

JAN  03 138b 

h   NOV  06  19S9 


%^^/). 
%%^ 


4.JPS 


:j 


19 


91989 


'0  LcOiSlk 
\/2B 

DISCHARGE 

I." 

IV  Z  7  197? 


1975 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  9001 


86    8 


(i^ 


r 


3   1158  00407  2905 


